From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23805 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 19:40:20 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 19:40:20 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 51976 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 19:40:15 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 19:40:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 17952 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 19:40:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26325 Received: (qmail 17936 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2009 19:40:11 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 16 Jan 2009 19:40:11 -0000 Received: from QMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.40]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA6780271F0 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:40:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from OMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.11]) by QMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4BiL1b0070EZKEL54Kg71Q; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:40:07 +0000 Received: from smtp.klanderman.net ([98.217.254.247]) by OMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4Kg71b0025M2Np63MKg7DN; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:40:07 +0000 Received: from lwm.klanderman.net (unknown [192.168.100.50]) by smtp.klanderman.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFF0B30144 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by lwm.klanderman.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id A57E19FC5E5; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:40:05 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Klanderman To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: treatment of empty strings - why is this not a bug? Reply-To: gak@klanderman.net Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:40:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200901161755.n0GHt4aT025943@news01.csr.com> (Peter Stephenson's message of "Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:55:04 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.17 (linux) References: <18796.17298.94642.461735@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <090115201912.ZM20275@torch.brasslantern.com> <200901161755.n0GHt4aT025943@news01.csr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8872/Fri Jan 16 17:55:46 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean >>>>> Peter Stephenson writes: > I think that's more likely to be a source of confusion rather than a > help. If you know about the problem you can already get round it. If > you don't the option isn't going to help. The option's yet another > headache for debugging. If the NO_SH_WORD_SPLIT default is only to be the source of subtle bugs and not actually useful, then it should be removed. > Further, I don't think the option would be useful without syntax to > restore the current behaviour for each variable (the opposite of > double-quoting), since as Bart pointed out that's quite widely used. > That adds yet another of layer of complexity and source of bugs. I cannot believe it's widely used, except in legacy scripts that predate array parameters. Why would you put an empty string into a variable unless you wanted it there? I don't see any reason you'd ever want the current behavior in a new script, and any existing script should just emulate to the broken behavior. greg