* here document within a switch fails to parse. @ 2021-01-06 15:13 Ray Andrews 2021-01-06 16:20 ` Daniel Shahaf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-06 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users function test1 () { : <<'ENDCOM' # No problems here with either ending #1 or #2 echo "Bad Idea!" # Some commented code. ENDCOM # Ending #1: comment-out one line ok. case ${1} in n ) echo en ;; #: <<'ENDCOM' # This pair: "parse error near `\n'" #ENDCOM esac #ENDCOM # Ending #2: comment-out most of function ok. echo "What's goin' on?" } ... So it seemed that a case statement won't tolerate a here document within itself. But then there's this, which parses fine: function test2 () { case ${1} in n ) echo en ;; v ) : <<'ENDCOM' # But this pair works fine. echo "BAD!" # Some commented code ENDCOM echo GOOD!: # Much better. ;; esac } ... So what am I missing? Sometimes the here document is perfectly ignored, other times it creates an error. Looks wrong. So far I haven't found any comparable errors but this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-06 15:13 here document within a switch fails to parse Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-06 16:20 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-06 17:17 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-06 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews, Zsh Users Ray Andrews wrote on Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:13 +00:00: > function test1 () > { > : <<'ENDCOM' # No problems here with either ending #1 or #2 > echo "Bad Idea!" # Some commented code. > ENDCOM # Ending #1: comment-out one line ok. > case ${1} in > n ) echo en ;; > #: <<'ENDCOM' # This pair: "parse error near `\n'" > #ENDCOM > esac > #ENDCOM # Ending #2: comment-out most of function ok. > echo "What's goin' on?" > } > > ... So it seemed that a case statement won't tolerate a here document > within itself. But then there's this, which parses fine: > > function test2 () > { > case ${1} in > n ) echo en ;; > > v ) > : <<'ENDCOM' # But this pair works fine. > echo "BAD!" # Some commented code > ENDCOM > echo GOOD!: # Much better. > ;; > esac > } > > ... So what am I missing? Sometimes the here document is perfectly > ignored, other times it creates an error. Looks wrong. The «;;» token must be followed by a pattern, but in your code, it is followed by a command («:») (which happens to use a heredocument, yes, but that's not actually relevant: $ zsh -fc 'case foo in (bar) ;; pwd; esac' zsh:1: parse error near `;'). ) > So far I haven't found any comparable errors but this. Perhaps because many a syntax that look weird are actually valid, but in any case, here's another place where commands aren't allowed: repeat foo bar <<baz baz do pwd done Cheers, Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-06 16:20 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-06 17:17 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-06 17:58 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2021-01-06 19:18 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-06 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-06 8:20 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > The «;;» token must be followed by a pattern, but in your code, it is > followed by a command («:») Ok, so at least this is understood. Still I'd expect the here document to be simply removed before parsing. It's one of those little bits of unfriendliness. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-06 17:17 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-06 17:58 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2021-01-06 19:18 ` Bart Schaefer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2021-01-06 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: zsh-users > On Jan 6, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > >> On 2021-01-06 8:20 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> >> The «;;» token must be followed by a pattern, but in your code, it is >> followed by a command («:») > Ok, so at least this is understood. Still I'd expect the here document to be simply removed before parsing. A. Why? Here-documents are not comments, despite your best efforts to abuse them for that role. B. Daniel already demonstrated that your issue has nothing to do with the here-document, but with the presence of the ':' command in an invalid location. vq Sent from my iPhone ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-06 17:17 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-06 17:58 ` Lawrence Velázquez @ 2021-01-06 19:18 ` Bart Schaefer 2021-01-07 7:55 ` Ray Andrews 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2021-01-06 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: Zsh Users On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:17 AM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > > Still I'd expect the here document > to be simply removed before parsing. Think again about what you just wrote? The parser is what determines where the here document begins and ends; parsing IS what removes it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-06 19:18 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2021-01-07 7:55 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-07 15:32 ` Daniel Shahaf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-07 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-06 11:18 a.m., Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:17 AM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: >> Still I'd expect the here document >> to be simply removed before parsing. > Think again about what you just wrote? > > The parser is what determines where the here document begins and ends; > parsing IS what removes it. > Well yes. I should have said that I'd expect it to be removed at the same level that comments are removed. Perhaps as Lawrence says this is not a good way to make comment blocks but apart from the one issue above, it seems entirely workable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-07 7:55 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-07 15:32 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-07 20:16 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-07 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: zsh-users Ray Andrews wrote on Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 23:55:59 -0800: > On 2021-01-06 11:18 a.m., Bart Schaefer wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:17 AM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > > > Still I'd expect the here document > > > to be simply removed before parsing. > > Think again about what you just wrote? > > > > The parser is what determines where the here document begins and ends; > > parsing IS what removes it. > > > Well yes. I should have said that I'd expect it to be removed at the same > level that comments are removed. Perhaps as Lawrence says this is not a good > way to make comment blocks but apart from the one issue above, it seems > entirely workable. Do consider treating the language as the independent variable and your expectations as the dependent one, rather than the other way around. The syntax means what it means, not what you wish it meant. Heredocs are string literals and input redirections, not comments. They don't get "removed". (Just try «:() { nl "$@" }».) The syntax is stateful. Heredocs aren't valid everywhere in the shell grammar, just like the contraction "aren't" aren't valid everywhere in English grammar. The construct you use has side-effects you've overlooked, which mean your fashion of comments will backfire in a way that you don't see yet. You really should stick to writing idiomatic code. (-workers@: Ray's fashion of comments resets lastval.) Do you see why the error message I quoted upthread complained about the semicolon and not about something else? And why «repeat dpkg-query --list zsh» does what it does? By the way, I wonder if the reason we're having this thread is that it hasn't occurred to you that your $EDITOR may have facilities for commenting or uncommenting multiple lines. Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-07 15:32 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-07 20:16 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-08 15:27 ` Karsten Borgwaldt 2021-01-12 13:28 ` Daniel Shahaf 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-07 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-07 7:32 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Do consider treating the language as the independent variable and your > expectations as the dependent one, rather than the other way around. I'll bend it to my will as much as I can, however 90% of changes since I started have been me getting used to zsh rather than the other way around. Still, you don't know what you don't know and however naive, my comment blocks do work. If there's a crash and burn coming up I'm sure I'll burn. > > The construct you use has side-effects you've overlooked, which mean > your fashion of comments will backfire in a way that you don't see yet. I'm prepared to find out the hard way. Guys like me suffer. > By the way, I wonder if the reason we're having this thread is that it > hasn't occurred to you that your $EDITOR may have facilities for > commenting or uncommenting multiple lines. There's an interesting idea! My editor doesn't but that would be quite a feature. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-07 20:16 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-08 15:27 ` Karsten Borgwaldt 2021-01-08 15:53 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2021-01-12 13:28 ` Daniel Shahaf 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Karsten Borgwaldt @ 2021-01-08 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users; +Cc: Ray Andrews [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --] Am Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2021, 21:16:03 CET schrieb Ray Andrews: > > The construct you use has side-effects you've overlooked, which mean > > your fashion of comments will backfire in a way that you don't see yet. > > I'm prepared to find out the hard way. Guys like me suffer. Some expressions in heredocs will be evaluated. Not a good idea for comments: :<<EOC $(print something > /dev/stderr) EOC [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-08 15:27 ` Karsten Borgwaldt @ 2021-01-08 15:53 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2021-01-08 17:13 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2021-01-08 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Karsten Borgwaldt; +Cc: zsh-users, Ray Andrews [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 423 bytes --] > On Jan 8, 2021, at 10:27 AM, Karsten Borgwaldt <kb@spambri.de> wrote: > > Some expressions in heredocs will be evaluated. Not a good idea for comments: > > :<<EOC > $(print something > /dev/stderr) > EOC Not if some or all of the delimiter specification is quoted (as Ray is doing, in response to a suggestion in an earlier thread): : <<\EOC $(print something > /dev/stderr) EOC vq Sent from my iPhone [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1278 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-08 15:53 ` Lawrence Velázquez @ 2021-01-08 17:13 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-08 18:06 ` Peter Stephenson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-08 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-08 7:53 a.m., Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Jan 8, 2021, at 10:27 AM, Karsten Borgwaldt <kb@spambri.de > <mailto:kb@spambri.de>> wrote: > >> Some expressions in heredocs will be evaluated. Not a good idea for >> comments: >> >> :<<EOC >> $(print something > /dev/stderr) >> EOC > > Not if some or all of the delimiter specification is quoted (as Ray is > doing, in response to a suggestion in an earlier thread): > > : <<\EOC > $(print something > /dev/stderr) > EOC > Good to know! But playing with the above: function test1 () { :<<EOC $(print something from a function with dollarsign) print something from a function redirected > /dev/stderr $(print something from a function both > /dev/stderr) # This is the only thing that prints. print something from a function COMMENT from a function echo "echo from a function" EOC } ... not to belabor it, but why in heaven is just that one construction evaluated? zsh always has a gotcha! waiting, but someone obviously went to some trouble to sniff that out. Neither the '$' nor the redirection is sufficient alone but they evaluate together. Why? I'd better read up on what here documents are really for. And it isn't comments! But when I want to quickly turn off a hundred lines of code, I succumb to the temptation. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-08 17:13 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-08 18:06 ` Peter Stephenson 2021-01-08 19:39 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2021-01-08 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews, zsh-users > On 08 January 2021 at 17:13 Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > function test1 () > { > :<<EOC > $(print something from a function with dollarsign) > print something from a function redirected > /dev/stderr > $(print something from a function both > /dev/stderr) # This is > the only thing that prints. > print something from a function > COMMENT from a function > echo "echo from a function" > EOC > } > > ... not to belabor it, but why in heaven is just that one construction > evaluated? You have what is effectively a double quoted expression. The shell evaluates any substitutions it needs to get the arguments to the command, so it can execute it. It needs to do that so it can end up with a simple set of strings, "command", "command argument 1", and so on. At this point it doesn't care what the command actually is. (In particular, it does NOT think "oh, this is Ray abusing the ":" command, so I'd better not do my usual processing". Nobody has got around to adding that mode to the shell yet.) So how it does it get "command argument 1" from the expression you've passed to it? There are only actually two subsitutions in that expression to be evaluated, the two $(...) expressions; everything else will be passed to the command as is. That includes anything that happens to look like a command --- remember, it's just stuff in a double quoted string at this point. The first $(...) is evaluated. It has no redirection, so that argument to the "print" is substituted into the string. You don't actually see that, it's just part of the command argument now. The second $(...) is evaluated. This time, there's a redirection, so the argument gets sent to stderr, so you see it. There's no output to stdout, so what will actually be substituted into the argument on the command line is the empty string. pws ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-08 18:06 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2021-01-08 19:39 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-08 19:56 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-08 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-08 10:06 a.m., Peter Stephenson wrote: > > (In particular, it does NOT think "oh, this is Ray abusing > the ":" command, so I'd better not do my usual processing". Nobody > has got around to adding that mode to the shell yet.) setopt RAY_ABUSING_ZSH Good idea! > > The second $(...) is evaluated. This time, there's a redirection, > so the argument gets sent to stderr, so you see it. There's > no output to stdout, so what will actually be substituted into > the argument on the command line is the empty string. That's quite logical. the $() is evaluated both times, I just don't see the output for one of them. Thanks Peter. But I still think we should have comment blocks. Yeah, I know it's not shellish. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-08 19:39 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-08 19:56 ` Bart Schaefer 2021-01-09 0:45 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-09 17:28 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2021-01-08 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: Zsh Users On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:40 AM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > Thanks Peter. But I still think we should > have comment blocks. Yeah, I know it's not shellish. Another approach you might consider: (( dothis )) && { # all the code you want to skip over } That does mean that "all the code you want to skip over" has to be syntactically valid, but it also means you can turn that code back on with dothis=1 zsh yourscript.zsh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-08 19:56 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2021-01-09 0:45 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-09 17:28 ` Ray Andrews 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-09 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-08 11:56 a.m., Bart Schaefer wrote: > > Another approach you might consider: > > (( dothis )) && { > # all the code you want to skip over > } > > That does mean that "all the code you want to skip over" has to be > syntactically valid, but it also means you can turn that code back on > with > > dothis=1 zsh yourscript.zsh > Cool. It seems less heretical. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-08 19:56 ` Bart Schaefer 2021-01-09 0:45 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-09 17:28 ` Ray Andrews 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-09 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-08 11:56 a.m., Bart Schaefer wrote: > Another approach you might consider: > (( dothis )) && { > # all the code you want to skip over > } > That is so much better when it's not a comment block but a code variation, as when debugging something: test1 () { (( 0 ))&&\ { echo "Version #1 of some huge block of code that is buggy and I want to 'back and forth' between it and some alternate" # Only correct code tho, this is parsed! } (( 1 ))&&\ { echo "Version #2 of some huge block of code that is buggy and I want to 'back and forth' between it and some alternate" # Only correct code tho, this is parsed! } } ... or both can be 'off' or both can be active! She is a dominatrix, but if you submit, pleasure awaits. Still, the here document method is preferred for actual long comments because it colorizes differently so the eye quickly passes over in in the editor. But slowly the Tao is revealed. Thank you Sensei. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-07 20:16 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-08 15:27 ` Karsten Borgwaldt @ 2021-01-12 13:28 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-12 14:45 ` Ray Andrews 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-12 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: zsh-users Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 12:16:03 -0800: > On 2021-01-07 7:32 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Do consider treating the language as the independent variable and your > > expectations as the dependent one, rather than the other way around. > I'll bend it to my will as much as I can, however 90% of changes since I > started have been me getting used to zsh rather than the other way around. > Still, you don't know what you don't know and however naive, my comment > blocks do work. If there's a crash and burn coming up I'm sure I'll burn. I reiterate the fourth paragraph of the grandparent post. The parenthetical describes a specific failure mode. > > > > The construct you use has side-effects you've overlooked, which mean > > your fashion of comments will backfire in a way that you don't see yet. > I'm prepared to find out the hard way. Guys like me suffer. Well, you've picked your poison, then. I'll only add that what you'll "find out the hard way" is more than just a case in which your "idiom" breaks. > > By the way, I wonder if the reason we're having this thread is that it > > hasn't occurred to you that your $EDITOR may have facilities for > > commenting or uncommenting multiple lines. > There's an interesting idea! My editor doesn't but that would be quite a > feature. Did you actually look? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-12 13:28 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-12 14:45 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-13 16:17 ` Daniel Shahaf 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-12 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-12 5:28 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote: > There's an interesting idea! My editor doesn't but that would be quite a >> feature. > Did you actually look? > Yes sir I did. I use a very lightweight but understandable IDE, what it lacks in features it makes up in being easy to use. It's too bad there's no place for a guy like me to learn the ropes, I don't know what I don't know. What I'd like is to be is a fly on the wall, watching you adepts work for a week -- I'd learn more in that week than thrashing around by myself for a year. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-12 14:45 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-13 16:17 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-13 21:57 ` Pier Paolo Grassi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-13 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews, zsh-users Ray Andrews wrote on Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:45 +00:00: > On 2021-01-12 5:28 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > There's an interesting idea! My editor doesn't but that would be quite a > >> feature. > > Did you actually look? > > > Yes sir I did. I use a very lightweight but understandable IDE, what it > lacks in features it makes up in being easy to use. (Turns out Ray's IDE does have that feature after all.) > It's too bad there's no place for a guy like me to learn the ropes, I > don't know what I don't know. What I'd like is to be is a fly on the > wall, watching you adepts work for a week -- I'd learn more in that > week than thrashing around by myself for a year. You're probably right about that, insofar as discovering features is concerned. (To a point, anyway; 80/20 still applies. Still, you can look for people who post videos of themselves coding.) However, knowing a ton of features shouldn't be your highest priority, IMO. It's very much like the difference between memorizing a map and learning to navigate. I will, for the third and last time, remind you that your fashion of comments _will_ break, in a specific way. Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-13 16:17 ` Daniel Shahaf @ 2021-01-13 21:57 ` Pier Paolo Grassi 2021-01-13 23:39 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Pier Paolo Grassi @ 2021-01-13 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: Ray Andrews, Zsh-Users List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1515 bytes --] > I will, for the third and last time, remind you that your fashion of > comments _will_ break, in a specific way. Since Ray doesn't ask, I will: what situation will break those "comments"? Pier Paolo Grassi Il giorno mer 13 gen 2021 alle ore 17:18 Daniel Shahaf < d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> ha scritto: > Ray Andrews wrote on Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:45 +00:00: > > On 2021-01-12 5:28 a.m., Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > There's an interesting idea! My editor doesn't but that would be > quite a > > >> feature. > > > Did you actually look? > > > > > Yes sir I did. I use a very lightweight but understandable IDE, what it > > lacks in features it makes up in being easy to use. > > (Turns out Ray's IDE does have that feature after all.) > > > It's too bad there's no place for a guy like me to learn the ropes, I > > don't know what I don't know. What I'd like is to be is a fly on the > > wall, watching you adepts work for a week -- I'd learn more in that > > week than thrashing around by myself for a year. > > You're probably right about that, insofar as discovering features is > concerned. (To a point, anyway; 80/20 still applies. Still, you can > look for people who post videos of themselves coding.) However, > knowing a ton of features shouldn't be your highest priority, IMO. > It's very much like the difference between memorizing a map and > learning to navigate. > > I will, for the third and last time, remind you that your fashion of > comments _will_ break, in a specific way. > > Daniel > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2238 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-13 21:57 ` Pier Paolo Grassi @ 2021-01-13 23:39 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-13 23:54 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-13 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 2021-01-13 1:57 p.m., Pier Paolo Grassi wrote: > Since Ray doesn't ask, I will: what situation will break those > "comments"? I'm primed to expect it, but so far the more robust " : <<\END " form seems fine. > (Turns out Ray's IDE does have that feature after all.) You don't know what you have until you know what you're looking for. > > You're probably right about that, insofar as discovering features is > concerned. (To a point, anyway; 80/20 still applies. Still, you can > look for people who post videos of themselves coding.) > Na, it's a question of soaking up the culture, it takes real time interaction. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: here document within a switch fails to parse. 2021-01-13 23:39 ` Ray Andrews @ 2021-01-13 23:54 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2021-01-13 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: zsh-users > On Jan 13, 2021, at 6:39 PM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > > On 2021-01-13 1:57 p.m., Pier Paolo Grassi wrote: > >> Since Ray doesn't ask, I will: what situation will break those "comments"? > > I'm primed to expect it, but so far the more robust " : <<\END " form seems fine. This is no more or less robust than what you already had (<<'END'). Interpretation of the here-document contents is suppressed if *any* of those characters is quoted. vq ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-13 23:55 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-01-06 15:13 here document within a switch fails to parse Ray Andrews 2021-01-06 16:20 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-06 17:17 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-06 17:58 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2021-01-06 19:18 ` Bart Schaefer 2021-01-07 7:55 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-07 15:32 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-07 20:16 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-08 15:27 ` Karsten Borgwaldt 2021-01-08 15:53 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2021-01-08 17:13 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-08 18:06 ` Peter Stephenson 2021-01-08 19:39 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-08 19:56 ` Bart Schaefer 2021-01-09 0:45 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-09 17:28 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-12 13:28 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-12 14:45 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-13 16:17 ` Daniel Shahaf 2021-01-13 21:57 ` Pier Paolo Grassi 2021-01-13 23:39 ` Ray Andrews 2021-01-13 23:54 ` Lawrence Velázquez
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/ This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).