On 2024-01-16 12:14, Roman Perepelitsa wrote:
> When I see "slurp", I know exactly what it does: reads a full file
> into a string. If you don't get the same immediate reaction, you
> really should: google "file slurp" and see that it's the way this
> facility is called in many programming languages.
>
> Now that "slurp" is taken by an unrelated command, "zslurp" is an
> obvious alternative

So it is.  Not 'zlurp' but 'zslurp' -- that fixes it.  Besides, it's 
your baby and you should make the call.