From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
To: zsh-users@zsh.org
Subject: Re: grammar triviality with '&&'
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 08:49:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <150302084958.ZM17306@torch.brasslantern.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150302103156.GB6869@xvii.vinc17.org>
On Mar 2, 11:31am, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
} Subject: Re: grammar triviality with '&&'
}
} On 2015-03-02 00:54:40 -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
} >
} > If nothing else, the errexit option would fail. With errexit,
}
} I agree that's not equivalent, but this would not be a problem
} in a "if ... then" construct (though I think it's a bad idea
} to use such a feature here).
Except that's exactly where Ray wants to use it!
} > You also get strange crap like
} >
} > while && this; do || if && that; then || thus; fi; done
} >
} > which would mean what, exactly?
}
} while [[ $? -eq 0 ]] && this; do [[ $? -ne 0 ]] || if [[ $? -eq 0 ]] && that; then [[ $? -ne 0 ]] || thus; fi; done
Yes obviously that's what you intend the literal interpretation to be,
but in what way is it sensibly meaningful in an actual program?
} > Finally if it's OK to have nothing before && / ||, then it would also be
} > syntactically OK to write
} >
} > && || && || && && ...
}
} I disagree. Only a && or || as the first word of a list would have
} a special meaning.
You can't escape the lunacy that easily:
&& { || { && { || { && { && ... } } } } }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-02 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-01 16:07 Ray Andrews
2015-03-01 16:43 ` ZyX
2015-03-01 17:01 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-01 18:48 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-03-01 19:00 ` ZyX
2015-03-01 19:16 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-01 20:48 ` ZyX
2015-03-01 18:49 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2015-03-02 2:27 ` Vincent Lefevre
2015-03-02 3:12 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-02 5:22 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2015-03-02 3:53 ` Kurtis Rader
2015-03-02 4:18 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-02 5:22 ` Kurtis Rader
2015-03-02 16:17 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-02 18:52 ` Kurtis Rader
2015-03-02 19:03 ` ZyX
2015-03-02 20:16 ` Kurtis Rader
2015-03-03 4:15 ` ZyX
2015-03-03 4:43 ` Kurtis Rader
2015-03-04 15:03 ` Vincent Lefevre
2015-03-04 19:07 ` ZyX
2015-03-02 19:25 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-02 10:46 ` Vincent Lefevre
2015-03-02 11:06 ` Peter Stephenson
2015-03-02 19:19 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-03-04 14:47 ` Vincent Lefevre
2015-03-05 1:51 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-03-05 10:06 ` Peter Stephenson
2015-03-02 8:54 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-03-02 10:31 ` Vincent Lefevre
2015-03-02 16:31 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-02 16:49 ` Bart Schaefer [this message]
2015-03-02 17:38 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-02 18:51 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-03-04 8:55 ` Vincent Lefevre
2015-03-04 17:12 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-06 4:59 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-03-06 16:10 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-06 20:23 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2015-03-06 21:25 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-06 16:32 ` Vincent Lefevre
2015-03-06 17:43 ` Bart Schaefer
2015-03-06 21:01 ` Ray Andrews
2015-03-09 11:26 ` Vincent Lefevre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=150302084958.ZM17306@torch.brasslantern.com \
--to=schaefer@brasslantern.com \
--cc=zsh-users@zsh.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).