Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f79b16d000005389-06-56a74355b2e9
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:58:42 +0000
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: Amusing (?) behavior of zsh/parameter specials
Message-id: <20160126095842.0add4d87@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <160125211140.ZM15762@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <160123090736.ZM14384@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20160124182611.710b0fba@ntlworld.com>
 <160125211140.ZM15762@torch.brasslantern.com>
Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker:
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xy7qhzsvDDI4sV7Q42PyQyYHRY9XB
	D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGUuWrWYs2Mtc0dn8gbGB8TFTFyMnh4SAicSH6d2MELaYxIV7
	69m6GLk4hASWMkrMWr6NEcKZwSTx+cZSJgjnHKPExikvoMrOMkocOXQVrJ9FQFXixsc5rCA2
	m4ChxNRNs8HiIgLiEmfXnmcBsYUFrCUW71sGZvMK2Ets/fmDGcTmFLCS+LlnN9TQSYwSFxZs
	AGvmF9CXuPr3E9Sx9hIzr5xhhGgWlPgx+R7YIGYBLYnN25pYIWx5ic1r3oINFRJQl7hxdzf7
	BEbhWUhaZiFpmYWkZQEj8ypG0dTS5ILipPRcI73ixNzi0rx0veT83E2MkJD+uoNx6TGrQ4wC
	HIxKPLycxcvChFgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nw1jgsDxPiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTOO3PX
	+xAhgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYLBMHp1QDo2h+TfmH18xtTM1nlt4Mam6T3NF2qsJUak/qeWaZ7Mn3
	NRr+LmThOHfVi9c6eunXn75Hi4UqVk/6t09Qel3ctV9KkvZLvE7Ylh1Ku5Vy6Xmb8KTkSTt6
	nm+8utOvd8d0Gz8vy77w9gXbT1/Zq/pV+a/ioQnGVxczBnIEJK/f1PsjccHNx2wasUosxRmJ
	hlrMRcWJAK6Z0GJlAgAA
X-Seq: zsh-workers 37791

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:11:40 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> The main problem with the latter one is that, if the parameter really
> is read-only after autoloading, "restoring" the unset will fail.  I
> guess the point is to restore the parameters that ARE set, so now that
> I've written this all down I lean even more to the first variant.

Yes, that was my attitude in previous changes for typeset -p.

pws