From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20948 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2015 16:32:04 -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: 19955 Received: (qmail 28620 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2015 16:31:51 -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=T/C1EZ6Q c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jzv7pUNyk+0Y+COVCE1LmA==:117 a=jzv7pUNyk+0Y+COVCE1LmA==:17 a=VNsaWKQvMhEA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=Jn9loMi3zQnHH4z1qvAA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=4IvBp4J7MeYA:10 a=1D1ZbFzAaa8A:10 Message-id: <54F49074.50906@eastlink.ca> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:31:48 -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> <150302005440.ZM16546@torch.brasslantern.com> <20150302103156.GB6869@xvii.vinc17.org> In-reply-to: <20150302103156.GB6869@xvii.vinc17.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 03/02/2015 02:31 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > 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. > Right, isn't the idea that newline or no newline, '&&' receives the value of the previous command? All that would change is that the newline would not break the pipe, no?