Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: confusing passage in zshexpn(1)
- X-seq: zsh-users 11080
- From: Frank Terbeck <ft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh users <zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: confusing passage in zshexpn(1)
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:31:20 +0100
- In-reply-to: <061211200101.ZM18194@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mail-followup-to: zsh users <zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-users-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- Operating-system: Linux 2.6.18.5suspend2+ipw2200 i686
- References: <20061212002156.GC2399@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <061211200101.ZM18194@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Dec 12, 1:21am, Frank Terbeck wrote:
[...]
> } But the manual suggests that this should work.
>
> People are WAY too "suggestible."
>
> Not every fragment that appears as part of a sentence is desgined to be
> usable as a literal stand-alone example! [...]
Yes, I agree. People should not take single sentences from the manual
out of context.
> } How could this be included in the manual?
>
> As it happens, this fragment DOES work if you setopt NO_BARE_GLOB_QUAL.
> That you need to use NO_BARE_GLOB_QUAL to avoid having trailing parens
> interpreted as glob qualifiers is documented in several other places.
> It's wildly impractical to document every possible interaction of the
> dozens of tangentially related options at every example.
[...]
ACK.
Apparently I should have thought a little more thoroughly before
posting. Sorry.
Regards, Frank
--
In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- RFC 1925
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author