Re: The elements of enlightenment

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 2022-12-05 08:24, Roman Perepelitsa wrote:
> This is the standard way of splitting the output of a command into
> lines and dropping empty lines:
>
>    list=( ${(f)"$(setopt)"} )
>
The thing is I finally really understand it.  I thought newlines always 
broke elements.  I thought that what you saw was what you had.
>    () {
>      local k v
>      local -A color=(on 32 off 33)
>      for k v in ${(kv)options}; do
>        printf '%-20s = \e[%sm%s\e[0m\n' $k ${color[$v]} $v
>      done
>    }

That's most educational, I had no idea you could do that 'for k v in' 
double capture.  And that's a cool demonstration of the use of an 
associative array -- the name can be called by a variable. Powerful.  
But, since setopt is a builtin anyway, why not just use it as is?  I 
love replacing binaries with native zsh code, but setopt is part of the 
family anyway so why not just take it's output?  The function I'm 
playing with requires the array as I have it, just getting the printout 
isn't enough.  I tweaked your code like this:

local k v
local list=()
local -A color=(on ${red} off ${nrm})        # My color variables do the 
predictable thing.
     for k v in ${(kv)options}; do
         list+=$( printf '%-20s %s%s\e[0m\n' $k ${color[$v]} $v )
     done

... to get my list.  The equivalent as I now have it is:

local list=( "$( setopt )" )
list=( ${(f)list} )
list=( "${list[@]/ off/${red} off${nrm}}" )    # red = 'off' here cuz 
that's the way Sebastian had it.

Which is best?  Probably hardly matters, but still, it's good to know.  
printf is heavy, no?  setopt might be lighter?