Re: PATCH: small parameter fix

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven Wischnowsky writes:
 > 
 > ...although I'm not sure if it was not intentional. If it was, I'd
 > like to hear the reason. This:
 > 
 >   ${${...}[...]}
 > 
 > previously didn't really work: if the inner ${...} produced an array
 > with only one element, the outer ${...} treated it as a string and the 
 > subscript gave the n'th character.

AHA!  This must be the reason that "${${(@)...}...}" is required in so
many mystifying circumstances.  I, too, would like to hear whether the
previous behavior was intentional ... this change does potentially
break scripts, including I think 3.0.5 scripts, so we'd better tread
carefully.