Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: new and updated completions
- X-seq: zsh-workers 15609
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PATCH: new and updated completions
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:58:25 +0000
- In-reply-to: <3B71740F.3D92A203@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <3B6EA97A.CD6DCB4F@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m34rrlz2ew.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B712464.A588EE5B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1010808155228.ZM922@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3B71740F.3D92A203@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Aug 8, 6:17pm, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: new and updated completions
}
} 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 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?
In the argument list of a command, it might be done just to alert the
reader that multiple arguments are potentially being provided.
In an expression like `args=( $args[@] ... )', the extra info is minimal.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author