Re: bug, limitation, ...?

[Zoltan Hidvegi <hzoli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Somebody was complaining to me on the S-Bahn yesterday evening that he
> couldn't do:
> 
> % set foo
> % print ${1[0]}
> zsh: closing brace expected
> 
> (I think this question has cropped up before, in fact, but that was
> long before Zoltan's parameter substitution improvements.)  It would
> be nice if numerical parameters were as much like `other' scalar
> parameters as possible.  (OK, they're really array elements, but the
> mode of addressing suggests that should be hidden from the user; after
> all, direct assignment works.)  Still, the world is not a nice place.
> If it turns out a change would be tantamount to allowing ${argv[0][0]}
> it's probably too much, at least for now.

Well, I have already fixed this, and in fact ${argv[0][0]} will work in pre4,
and more:

"${${(M)${(f@)$(<builtin.pro)}:%char*}[2][(w)3]}"

expands to the third word of the second line of builtin.pro which begins
with char.

This is really a side effect of a fix to the ${foo[1]} bug when foo is
unset.  Peter had a fix for that as well but I did not like that much.  It
was quite easy to do that, but big chunks of the code had to be reindented
so the diff's may look big.

Zoltan