Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary)

X-seq: zsh-workers 1394
From: Zefram <A.Main@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: schaefer@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:06:52 +0100 (BST)
Cc: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Z Shell workers mailing list)
In-reply-to: <960621003054.ZM3580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Bart Schaefer" at Jun 21, 96 00:30:52 am

>Aside:  Filename generation:  If you set both NULL_GLOB and NO_NOMATCH,
>which one wins?

NULL_GLOB.  It actually beats any related option.  Just as well too, as
this is relied upon in a number of places where NULL_GLOB is
temporarily set.

>                 What the heck happened to NO_NOMATCH when the change
>was made to make the prefix "no" into a magic equivalent of "unsetopt"?
>`setopt nonomatch' should be the same as `unsetopt nomatch', but what
>about `setopt nomatch'??  Why isn't it `unsetopt match'?  Gaahhh.  Or
>did I completely misunderstand what that was all about?

That patch isn't in the baseline yet.  It made the canonical form of
that option NOMATCH, so that "setopt NOMATCH", "unsetopt NOMATCH",
"setopt NO_NOMATCH" and "unsetopt NO_NOMATCH" are valid.  MATCH was not
made a legal option.  I actually added quite a bit of text explaining
this to the zshoptions man page in the patch.

-zefram

References:
- zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary)
  - From: Bart Schaefer

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author