From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24197 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2015 04:48:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 19946 Received: (qmail 26295 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2015 04:48:24 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=X+5rdgje c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=v3jdlwE+mftNnR1sUa1KMQ==:117 a=v3jdlwE+mftNnR1sUa1KMQ==:17 a=VNsaWKQvMhEA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=MtWXhzCKauf64oPgzmwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Message-id: <54F3E489.5050603@eastlink.ca> Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:18:17 -0800 From: Ray Andrews User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: grammar triviality with '&&' References: <54F33934.2070607@eastlink.ca> <13666281425228233@web7o.yandex.ru> <54F345D3.9010204@eastlink.ca> <20150302022754.GA7449@xvii.vinc17.org> In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 03/01/2015 07:53 PM, Kurtis Rader wrote: > How often would such a feature be useful? Very infrequently in my > opinion. Furthermore, it is almost guaranteed to cause anyone reading > the statement to wonder if the author made a mistake as the idiom is > unlike anything else I can think of in Bourne style shells. I believe > the benefits don't justify the costs of the feature. Well, what would the costs be? It looks to me that the error is an arbitrary restriction and if it didn't break something I'd remove it even if for no other reason that that it is arbitrary. Of course if there were any complications, then it shouldn't be touched. Oh, and of course no one has to use it if they think it would ruffle anyone's feathers as far as tradition, but I'd use it for sure. Things should only be limited where it is necessary that they be limited. I'd not be surprised if the code was actually simpler, '&&' would just grab the errorlevel of the previous command as always and there'd just be one less error to handle.