From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3984 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2009 05:31:22 -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; 17 Jan 2009 05:31:22 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 27670 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2009 05:31:16 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 17 Jan 2009 05:31:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 18769 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2009 05:31:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26335 Received: (qmail 18755 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2009 05:31:11 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 17 Jan 2009 05:31:11 -0000 Received: from QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.32]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED0780271F0 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:31:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4VUX1b00Q0xGWP853VX722; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:31:07 +0000 Received: from smtp.klanderman.net ([98.217.254.247]) by OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4VX71b0065M2Np63YVX7vh; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:31:07 +0000 Received: from lwm.klanderman.net (unknown [192.168.100.50]) by smtp.klanderman.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15066B30144 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by lwm.klanderman.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id 033399FC5E5; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:31:05 -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: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:31:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <090116193527.ZM22429@torch.brasslantern.com> (Bart Schaefer's message of "Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:35:27 -0800") 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> <090116193527.ZM22429@torch.brasslantern.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8873/Sat Jan 17 04:33:31 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean >>>>> Bart Schaefer writes: > Consider an array populated by using a glob pattern, which is then > subjected to replacement using $arr:s/pat// or $arr:h or $arr:t. > You don't know at time of execution what will be matched in by the > glob, nor necessarily what will be left behind after substitution. > If the substitution results in an emtpy string, how often do you > want that to remain in the argument list of whatever action you next > apply to the contents of the array? I do not agree with this reasoning, but I don't think it's worth continuing to argue about it. thank you, Greg