Re: Which versiosn of ZSH of WS instead of NUL as result seperator

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 23,  8:06pm, Richard Hartmann wrote:
} 
} Sorry, should have posted this [1] right away..
} 
} [1] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&q=+%22Some+versions+of+zsh+use+spaces+instead+of+NULs+to+separate%22+show:7brZGF5oKIU:mnXLpU4y0PU:6p3TOUN40_w&sa=N&cd=1&ct=rc&cs_p=http://www.minix3.org/software/vim-6.3.tar.bz2&cs_f=vim-6.3/src/os_unix.c#a0
}-- End of excerpt from Richard Hartmann

So if I read this correctly, the question is:  Which versions of zsh fail
to use NUL between words in the output of "print -N"?

As far as I know, the answer is:  Versions of zsh so old that they don't
support "print -N" in the first place.

I don't know of any circumstances in which that comment in the vim source
is meaningful.  Either "print -N" will fail with "bad option" or it'll
output words separated by NULs.  My only conjecture is that the comment
predates the code earlier in the file, that uses the STYLE_PRINT flag.