From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-20520-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.dk>
Received: (qmail 16910 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2004 16:07:02 -0000
Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Oct 2004 16:07:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 90957 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2004 16:06:56 -0000
Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90)
  by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Oct 2004 16:06:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 24926 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2004 16:06:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 20520
Received: (qmail 24893 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2004 16:06:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88)
  by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Oct 2004 16:06:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 89677 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2004 16:06:09 -0000
Received: from moonbase.zanshin.com (64.84.47.139)
  by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 25 Oct 2004 16:06:07 -0000
Received: from toltec.zanshin.com (toltec.zanshin.com [64.84.47.166])
	by moonbase.zanshin.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9PG5xjd021847;
	Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:05:59 -0700
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Reply-To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk
To: Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>
cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk
Subject: Re: More POSIX developments 
In-Reply-To: <200410041023.i94ANvFc011725@news01.csr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410250903571.23496@toltec.zanshin.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0409241908380.1714@toltec.zanshin.com>
 <200409271104.i8RB4URU009112@news01.csr.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410021419240.25270@toltec.zanshin.com>
 <200410041023.i94ANvFc011725@news01.csr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Hits: 0.0

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Peter Stephenson wrote:

> Yes, the more I think about it the less likely it is that someone using 
> "test" or "[" syntax wants anything other than standard-compliant 
> behaviour.

Just to keep things entertaining, this discusson was just revived on the 
austin-group list, and Geoff Clare is arguing in favor of permitting the
extension ...