From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10772 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2000 19:37:00 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 4 Apr 2000 19:37:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 21877 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2000 19:32:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 10485 Received: (qmail 21820 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2000 19:32:23 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: == ? In-reply-to: "Johan Sundstr m"'s message of "Tue, 04 Apr 2000 19:00:42 +0200." Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 20:32:18 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Message-Id: Johan Sundstr m wrote: > Another thing I forgot at first when on the subject: for quite some time > now, has been ungreedy about its matches, to my disappointment. This > means that <1-2>* will match 1, 2, 10 through 29, and so on, instead of a > single, closed range, as at leas I would hope when constructing such a > pattern. I thought about this when I changed it, and came to the conclusion that the new behaviour was a simple matter of consistency with patterns. * guarantees to match anything at all, so 123potato is bound to match <1-2>*. I don't think it's an option to make * not match numbers in this one case. You probably don't need to be told all the workarounds; I suppose the simplest is <1-2>[^0-9]*. -- Peter Stephenson Work: pws@CambridgeSiliconRadio.com Web: http://www.pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk