Re: Avoiding the zshells intelligence...in one case

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 24/01/17 02:31 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017, Ray Andrews wrote:
>
>> Sure, but if we have any chains -- one command calling another -- we end
>> up loosing the quotes as things are passed along.
> That's not true UNLESS you've either used a poorly constructed alias (which
> is not really "one command calling another") or you have explicitly removed
> quoting with "eval" or a parameter expansion flag.  Once a word is properly
> quoted inside a parameter value, even a positional parameter, it remains
> properly quoted until you mess with it somehow (which might include having
> SH_WORD_SPLIT set, but that's why that's not set by default).

God knows.  I've probably zigged to fix my zags  on occasion, which is 
to say that I've had to do funny stuff to fix other funny stuff and the 
right way is not nearly as bad as I think.  I'd almost pay someone to 
look over my functions and proof read them, probably lots of bad code.
> And that's just what I'm saying -- it would be nice to have some sort of
> bomb-proof zero expansion ability.
> You're missing the point.  You can't "bomb-proof" syntactic tokens like
> "&" without fundamentally changing the language.  It's like asking a C
> compiler not to recognize semicolons.

But you can single quote, no?