Re: path PATH

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 2023-01-28 19:03, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> That's not an answer to the question.  Other available information is
> also accurate, just not (what you consider) complete.
Hmmm ... OK, as you use the word.  As I was using it 'accurate' includes 
complete and unambiguous and helpful.  Short of dp, there was no direct 
way of seeing *all* the attributes.  I don't get it Bart, you and Roman 
provided a very nice function and at the  same time you're speaking as 
if there was nothing for it to do.
> If the answer is just because you're curious, that's perfectly fine,
> but it isn't necessarily a justification for adding something to the C
> code of the shell.
That's for the dev's judgement of course.  I have what I want in any 
case.  Dunno, I guess it's just my mentality.  I like complete 
information estheticaly displayed.  Matter of principle mostly, but 
sometimes of practice.  As in this case, I'm occasionally thrown off the 
scent by something misleading or incomplete.  I've had two private 
messages thanking *me* for dp even tho I didn't write it. So I'm not the 
only guy liking that display.  I still think it should be a core 
competence.
>
> Incidentally, "typeset -P" is already co-opted by the zsh/param/private module.

I picked '-P' as a for instance -- sorta 'p' on steroids.  Come to that, 
just philosophically speaking, I don't like commands having both active 
and passive functionality anyway, so it shouldn't be attached to 
typeset.  You don't want to type a command to 'see' something and end up 
'doing' something by accident.  Imagine if 'rm' had a passive usage: 'rm 
-V' ... view previous deletions ... and you type 'rm -r' by mistake and 
... Nope, I was wrong to use typeset to display information from the getgo.