Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: Icky little array slice assignment bug
- X-seq: zsh-workers 14390
- From: Wayne Davison <wayned@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Icky little array slice assignment bug
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 05:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: <zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <1010518181629.ZM17512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> zagzig% a=(x y z)
> zagzig% a[(I)q]=W
> zagzig% echo $a
> x y W x y z
I patched this in a similar way to your diff, but I also made a[(I)q]=W
prepend the 'W' to the array.
> x y W x y z V <-- this is ok
> zagzig% a[(R)q]=U
> zagzig% echo $a
> U y W x y z V <-- this is probably unexpected
This is because we currently have a[0] as an alias for a[1]. Did we
have a good reason for that? I think it would make more sense to have
a[0] return an empty string, while setting it should prepend an element
to the array. My appended patch goes this route.
> Well, whaddya know; you CAN do an "unshift", you just have to use a
> seemingly-impossible range to accomplish it.
You can also insert a new element anywhere with something like
"a[3,2]=middle". I think that this is a good thing.
> zagzig% a=(a b c)
> zagzig% a[2,(R)q]=x
> zagzig% echo $a
> a x a b c
Yeah, that's really non-intuitive, isn't it? You actually told zsh that
you wanted all elements before 2 ("a") before the new string, and all
the elements after 0, ("a b c") after the string. I think that this
should work the same as a[2,1] -- i.e. it should insert the string
without duplicating any existing elements. My patch also does this.
If we decide that changing a[0] is a bad idea, I can change $a[(R)q]
to return an empty string when there is no match (rather than the first
element of the array), and I could even make "a[(R)q]=prepend" work
without affecting "a[0]=newfirstelement". I had such a patch all worked
up when I decided that a[0] should just behave consistently no matter
where the 0 came from.
Thoughts?
..wayne..
Index: Src/params.c
@@ -1252,8 +1252,6 @@
}
if (start > 0)
start--;
- else if (start == 0 && end == 0)
- end++;
if (s == tbrack) {
s++;
if (v->isarr && start == end-1 && !com &&
@@ -1721,8 +1719,13 @@
v->pm->nam, 0);
return;
}
- if (v->inv && unset(KSHARRAYS))
- v->start--, v->end--;
+ if (v->inv && unset(KSHARRAYS)) {
+ if (v->start > 0)
+ v->start--;
+ v->end--;
+ }
+ if (v->end < v->start)
+ v->end = v->start;
q = old = v->pm->gets.afn(v->pm);
n = arrlen(old);
if (v->start < 0) {
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author