From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29174 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2014 23:17:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 32709 Received: (qmail 18809 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2014 23:17:01 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=P9Gn30vQ4BzczUQ8lFB1Lm/jvy+mcvuFmYi3DEo+rHo=; b=kGzF6HfVx6H5G3VFGbStHu7GZX0lddj1A+EplMwDHOE+t+mUEu/isGUzDb/o3uE94h yhIXpy6AvWpwTTwJvh4d5e8caoiIYnm8UjvpJmhgVRsha21laAxWJN5PEkZs5Y/sFjFe 7DAEK1m7M4VxIsljuhgbFInh7yfxdNwj4tSymifSVNgFJFZz2nwgFN8DVozTKTlaeLUV bMs9nN+Emcn75QF4Y9s+TAc6Mn6F1Ba43TCD8ijIKQi243iUtQBpR5Wr4ERGjBrRLWQ/ gUZDFbltQG503rLrTsxXN3XBm5oh3gZvEYFwXJNvab6gRCr+RDoUceHnP6c1SIG+7/7i 1hvA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQny7aZXsC+2M8DZYJPvD20qs9ZF/eQoIa2WD7QW7rCZt0xhVfJugE72PEmtNAuFjUCR1M+2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.213.66 with SMTP id gv2mr76392223qcb.13.1401923818666; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:16:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140604230835.GD1970@tarsus.local2> References: <20140602182346.GB1858@tarsus.local2> <140602204603.ZM26905@torch.brasslantern.com> <20140604020804.GA2032@tarsus.local2> <140603234229.ZM29030@torch.brasslantern.com> <20140604230835.GD1970@tarsus.local2> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:16:58 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: (Y) modifier: up to N matches? From: Bart Schaefer To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11333fac36eaed04fb0ad3a6 --001a11333fac36eaed04fb0ad3a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Jun 4, 2014 4:08 PM, "Daniel Shahaf" wrote: > > Bart Schaefer wrote on Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 23:42:29 -0700: > > It might even be preferable if (Yn) implied (odoN). > > What would (odoN) do? It produces the same output as (oN) alone, since > presence of (oN) causes any other sort qualifiers to be ignored. I verified by comparing the output of **/*(odoN) vs **/*(oN) that they may in fact differ. I didn't dig into exactly how or why. More later when I have time to peruse the patches. --001a11333fac36eaed04fb0ad3a6--