Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: new and updated completions
- X-seq: zsh-workers 15605
- From: Oliver Kiddle <okiddle@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PATCH: new and updated completions
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 18:17:03 +0100
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <3B6EA97A.CD6DCB4F@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m34rrlz2ew.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B712464.A588EE5B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1010808155228.ZM922@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: kiddleo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> There is no reason, ever, to use $args[@].
>
> Either ksharrays is set, in which case you need ${args[@]}, or it is not
> set, in which case $args is equivalent and microscopically faster.
I thought about this once ages ago but didn't mention it. I've just
followed what seems to be the convention in the completion functions. In
the functions, there are:
2 occurences of ${expl[@]}
3 occurences of $expl and
139 occurences of $expl[@]
So it is not just my fault. I had assumed that it was done this way for
a reason such as handling a strange option combination or that it was
considered more readable to have the [@] there. Maybe someone does have
a reason?
Oliver
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author