---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 23 Sep 2007 20:58 Subject: Re: Which versiosn of ZSH of WS instead of NUL as result seperator To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 23, 8:06pm, Richard Hartmann wrote: } } Sorry, should have posted this [1] right away.. } } [1] http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&q=+%22Some+versions+of+zsh+use+spaces+instead+of+NULs+to+separate%22+show:7brZGF5oKIU:mnXLpU4y0PU:6p3TOUN40_w&sa=N&cd=1&ct=rc&cs_p=http://www.minix3.org/software/vim-6.3.tar.bz2&cs_f=vim-6.3/src/os_unix.c#a0 }-- End of excerpt from Richard Hartmann So if I read this correctly, the question is: Which versions of zsh fail to use NUL between words in the output of "print -N"? As far as I know, the answer is: Versions of zsh so old that they don't support "print -N" in the first place. I don't know of any circumstances in which that comment in the vim source is meaningful. Either "print -N" will fail with "bad option" or it'll output words separated by NULs. My only conjecture is that the comment predates the code earlier in the file, that uses the STYLE_PRINT flag. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
