From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5428 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2017 20:40:41 -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: 22459 Received: (qmail 23577 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2017 20:40:41 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mta02.eastlink.ca by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(24.224.136.13):SA:0(-0.7/5.0):. Processed in 0.867992 secs); 12 Feb 2017 20:40:41 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: rayandrews@eastlink.ca X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.eastlink.ca designates 24.224.136.13 as permitted sender) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=ZvqvEJzG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=aWG3ZaPfpGbmBTXoUM+q2Q==:117 a=aWG3ZaPfpGbmBTXoUM+q2Q==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=w7Tl7Tj4JTL27R_4EQ8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-EL-IP-NOAUTH: 24.207.17.185 Subject: Re: padding. To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <0befdb38-eaa5-6388-a3fe-58b1a73834b7@eastlink.ca> <170211110437.ZM467@torch.brasslantern.com> <20170212061455.GA4267@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> From: Ray Andrews Message-id: <5a98b872-30c9-1d20-c219-ed84df7845b4@eastlink.ca> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:10:31 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 In-reply-to: <20170212061455.GA4267@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> On 11/02/17 10:14 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > printf is not a reserved word (it isn't part of the syntax), however, > it _is_ builtin to the shell: > > % which printf > printf: shell built-in command > > If printf weren't a builtin, it wouldn't have been able to grow the > «-v variablename» flag. I have a sort of built-in thinking that 'direct syntax' (if that means anything) is always better. Dunno, maybe because I presume that commands are external, another hangover from DOS. I think that if I 'don't need' printf then I shouldn't use it. Scottish frugality? Probably I should try to avoid that thinking as baseless. As to the variable, I was sorta pondering that and of course the answer is just as you give it.