Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: question of (C) and (s::)

X-seq: zsh-users 17330
From: Han Pingtian <hanpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: zsh-users@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: question of (C) and (s::)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:24 +0800
Cc: p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121002143127.6ceacbe6@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
List-help: <mailto:zsh-users-help@zsh.org>
List-id: Zsh Users List <zsh-users.zsh.org>
List-post: <mailto:zsh-users@zsh.org>
Mailing-list: contact zsh-users-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
References: <20120930073552.GC7385@localhost.localdomain> <120930090023.ZM26333@torch.brasslantern.com> <20121002143127.6ceacbe6@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:31:27PM +0100, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> -item(tt(10.) em(Forced Joining))(
> +item(tt(10.) em(Forced joining))(
>  If the `tt((j))' flag is present, or no `tt((j))' flag is present but
>  the string is to be split as given by rules tt(16.) or tt(17.), and joining
>  did not take place at step tt(5.), any words in the value are joined
> @@ -1330,36 +1332,41 @@ together using the given string or the f
>  Note that the `tt((F))' flag implicitly supplies a string for joining in this
>  manner.

It looks like 16 is "Visibility enhancement" now, so it shouldn't be stated
as "is to be split as given by rules 16. or 17." anymore.  Please have a
look. 

Thanks in advance.

References:
- question of (C) and (s::)
  - From: Han Pingtian
- Re: question of (C) and (s::)
  - From: Bart Schaefer
- Re: question of (C) and (s::)
  - From: Peter Stephenson

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author