From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26730 invoked from network); 26 Aug 1999 09:58:25 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Aug 1999 09:58:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 680 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 1999 09:58:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7494 Received: (qmail 673 invoked from network); 26 Aug 1999 09:58:16 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Files modified after a given date In-Reply-To: <199908260942.LAA14798@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> from Sven Wischnowsky at "Aug 26, 1999 11:42:20 am" To: wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de (Sven Wischnowsky) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:58:06 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Sven Wischnowsky wrote: >Hmm, yes that may be an interesting alternative. Wouldn't be hard to >implement either and we wouldn't really need any meta character- >sequence, we could just set `$FILE' or something like that before >evaluating the whole thing. I'm in two minds as to which arrangement is better. I think this one just has the edge, in that it makes it possible to invent impromptu functions on the command line. But make it $_ instead of $FILE -- not only is it shorter, but it's already used in comparable ways (mail notification). -zefram