Re: Another ${(z)param} buglet

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 9,  6:16pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:42:33 -0800
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
} > There isn't yet a (Z) flag; perhaps we could make that the equivalent
} > of turning on interactivecomments, and leave (z) as it was?
} 
} Wondered about that, but there are so many possible tweaks to word
} splitting I'm trying to think of a more flexible way than simply two
} letters (that doesn't involve anything as gross as a shell option).

Perhaps leave (z) alone and introduce (Z:stuff:) where stuff can be
a set of controls for how the parse is applied?

Another possibility would be to introduce a builtin ala zparseopts that
dismantles the string and populates a hash, or something.