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

Re: bug, limitation, ...?

> Somebody was complaining to me on the S-Bahn yesterday evening that he
> couldn't do:
> % set foo
> % print ${1[0]}
> zsh: closing brace expected
> (I think this question has cropped up before, in fact, but that was
> long before Zoltan's parameter substitution improvements.)  It would
> be nice if numerical parameters were as much like `other' scalar
> parameters as possible.  (OK, they're really array elements, but the
> mode of addressing suggests that should be hidden from the user; after
> all, direct assignment works.)  Still, the world is not a nice place.
> If it turns out a change would be tantamount to allowing ${argv[0][0]}
> it's probably too much, at least for now.

Well, I have already fixed this, and in fact ${argv[0][0]} will work in pre4,
and more:


expands to the third word of the second line of builtin.pro which begins
with char.

This is really a side effect of a fix to the ${foo[1]} bug when foo is
unset.  Peter had a fix for that as well but I did not like that much.  It
was quite easy to do that, but big chunks of the code had to be reindented
so the diff's may look big.


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