From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 347 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2017 01:49:14 -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: 22421 Received: (qmail 26620 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2017 01:49:14 -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(-3.9/5.0):. Processed in 0.768531 secs); 25 Jan 2017 01:49:14 -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=-3.9 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) X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=ZvqvEJzG c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=28Ntk8jg+Dho8ABWn/CRtA==:117 a=28Ntk8jg+Dho8ABWn/CRtA==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=MqT3wmAGTexWoUlPr7EA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 X-EL-IP-NOAUTH: 24.207.16.108 Subject: Re: Avoiding the zshells intelligence...in one case To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <20170122080153.GA5042@solfire> <213742a3-d208-973d-3b86-1ac29b9d96dd@eastlink.ca> <2f69cfec-46e2-1a93-101d-fb0579d0637f@gmx.com> From: Ray Andrews Message-id: <864415b1-bb85-8b61-1f2e-ae811802fafe@eastlink.ca> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:19:04 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.6.0 MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit 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?