From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu>
Received: (qmail 16025 invoked from network); 9 Dec 1998 01:21:03 -0000
Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 Dec 1998 01:21:03 -0000
Received: (from list@localhost)
	by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA07214;
	Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:14:44 -0500 (EST)
Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:14:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19981209011923.40055@athenaeum.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:19:23 +0000
From: Phil Pennock <phil@athenaeum.demon.co.uk>
To: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: "Fallback" alias/function in zsh
Mail-Followup-To: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu
References: <19981208220443.A180@morpheus.demon.co.uk> <981208155032.ZM7173@candle.brasslantern.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1
In-Reply-To: <981208155032.ZM7173@candle.brasslantern.com>; from "Bart Schaefer" on Tue 8 Dec 1998 (15:50 -0800)
Organisation: Organisation?  Here?  No, over there ---->
X-Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this message, where not explicitly
	attributed otherwise, are mine and mine alone.  Such views
	do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation
	or company with which I am or have been affiliated.
X-Phase-of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (67% of Full)
Resent-Message-ID: <"M5Rvy.0.Em1.zxSRs"@math>
Resent-From: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-users@math.gatech.edu> archive/latest/1967
X-Loop: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu
X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu

Typing away merrily, Bart Schaefer produced the immortal words:
> In 3.1.5, there's the preexec() function, in which you could do something
> like this:
> 
>   function preexec() {
>     command=("$@")
>   }
>   function precmd() {
>     (($?)) && CMD /C "$command[@]"
>   }
[...]
> This will do unusual things when you execute compound commands (separated
> with ; && || etc.) and won't work for backgrounded commands (&) but should
> do what you want for simple commands typed at the prompt.

That seems dangerous.  The problem looks to be 'if path lookup fails'
not 'if path lookup fails or program returns non-zero'; could be fun to
run a grep(1) port and have it run twice if no matches were found ...
-- 
--> Phil Pennock ; GAT d- s+:+ a22 C++(++++) UL++++/I+++/S+++/H+ P++@ L+++
E-@ W(+) N>++ o !K w--- O>+ M V !PS PE Y+ PGP+ t-- 5++ X+ R !tv b++>+++ DI+ D+
G+ e+ h* r y?