On 11/05/08 08:32 +0800, Dasn wrote:
>
> On 08/05/08 17:40 -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the history or rationale behind the current
> > implementation of sh_vimglob_func, but it seems odd that the first
> > echo is given the -n option to suppress the final newline, then a
> > second echo is used to create a newline in the same place. The
> > solution, therefore, seems to be to eliminate the -n option to the
> > first echo command and eliminate the second echo command completely.
> > The resulting initial value of sh_vimglob_func is
> >
> > vimglob() { while [ $# -ge 1 ]; do echo "$1"; shift; done }; vimglob >
> >
>
> I think you are right. Originally, the second 'echo' was intend to
> suppress an '\0' at the end of each matched items for working on many
> kinds of POSIX shells. As the record is now considered NL separated, the
> additional echo is not necessary.
>
> I tested your version of vimglob() on OBSD with ksh, fine.
>
Oooops, I mean "intend to generate an '\0'", not suppress. :)
^^^^^^^^
--
Dasn
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
