Peter Stephenson wrote:
I use zsh 3.0.5-nt-beta-0.75 and *very happy* about Unix name semantics. And i use it exactly because of Unix name semantics. But there are some bugs in that version (which i tried to fix manually, and i have quick-n-dirty fixed some). I use Unix utilities from http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/. They are very happy about Unix name semantics too. Even vim likes it.Alexey Vatchenko wrote:Where can i get NT port of last zsh? (AFAIK Cygwin Zsh != NT port Zsh)You're correct that the Cygwin version isn't the same as native NT (2000, XP). However, the changes to compile natively under Windows are substantial and Cygwin have done most of the work for us. Furthermore, you won't get very far with any of the supplied functions without a set of Unix tools, and they assume Unix file name semantics. In short, Cygwin is almost certainly your best bet.
The main reason i use Unix name semantics is Windows understands it too.Cygwin, in other hand, uses names that actually does not exist in system. And that's why i don't like Microsoft Services for Unix as well.
As far as I know the older zsh that ran natively under Windows isn't being maintained.
too bad!
--
%kill -9 `ps ax | grep "BUG" | awk '{print $1}'`;
echo debugged | mail -s "gdb" avv@xxxxxxxxxx