From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-users-return-23042-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 22323 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2017 19:01:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Users List <zsh-users.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-users@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-users-help@zsh.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:zsh-users-unsubscribe@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 23042
Received: (qmail 15436 invoked by uid 1010); 31 Dec 2017 19:01:19 -0000
X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from <linux.tech.guy@gmail.com>, uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 
 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1.  
 Clear:RC:0(74.125.82.51):SA:0(-0.9/5.0):. 
 Processed in 3.604974 secs); 31 Dec 2017 19:01:19 -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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.1
X-Envelope-From: linux.tech.guy@gmail.com
X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: |
X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: |
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
         :subject:to;
        bh=gsuSXm/rd83KhTfvF7awOy9/xg3SG5WVZh7Ph3TzrOM=;
        b=Sbi6kYdyypxLaTiyE0s2zidHBemfmaPn3/FDrp54uJTvCCOLasiXQ1fXrLNHLPUYT3
         t7/ijv982YOJUbgnCZBDhwcbmIpZy9w1GlZWkoh1RZ7IK/4MC54YyhsIbyBBOxX9EP3I
         lDeh80pCPgHcXjxZn8LbviuEEsDFIWoBXipAXFWp9jpGDPsrQebw+Ki8mnV4v1mcSDPj
         ogl4YGTHumnAxcWqtpmbFjb/rDqLH/VMuCIlx5GkXlpzKEyiE9L05jGnrV+g8fEPQRZP
         K6DvjpaqwDcjivToVVNremcSWL9QrYw7/NldNCpgqvlGUvltON+fa+xadteiTY5L+XjC
         fElw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references
         :from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=gsuSXm/rd83KhTfvF7awOy9/xg3SG5WVZh7Ph3TzrOM=;
        b=d1z+Btqqr5X5W9HBbsm6XCfiSx1h00pnUYM22588lf6GsU1U1XYzXH8MtXlEeWIdso
         iyMNAQB+1LUPNfawBbeZD3mo7b4TfISrakX6GxPom6Y6/x5WfBm4CWcZ82WGW2ufqTLs
         4Dmumwh4e52hSbuFmIvbTuCyLmM+fyKscoEoIRHc9uzz4V1+e72Gvo7zC2HgxGANHIA6
         2sxWac8og2Aogt0QvqEN4nrNQ5oUIIaLj8mOZWZ3mrqbT1bn5RBROKOqN/eGT40OuElY
         M8s4zMF/CsV2s9Y5gqSx+uls2TyHNUwh+asS18Ek9ySpzAvzFujEFi34kWA7W+NLNNvf
         xEtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLfXCn9dk4Hj0RIKhv8YBle0B/cOh2dDeu5P50u5ijH5ciF+apF
	7h2Tru2iNjSqAKo2ALqCR8P7B7Af3uu1mzqTTF0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotzFIlvh/Rbm50oxvUKncD62uupBmhSbfxKvZQDEERLP/0pCirqKE3hsauOOiXRwpsin7J0noqsjk0aDwTzg1M=
X-Received: by 10.80.179.187 with SMTP id s56mr53125510edd.87.1514746870907;
 Sun, 31 Dec 2017 11:01:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: linuxtechguy@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAH+w=7bC2D+n8t-8UwD0Q++4mg98JvsJpYMmU0iC=yqr8ozWOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+rB6GLSgUkWiBRMmNQ_gc-A2pABpPJVnR8xf9tpYaK3e8JMyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH+w=7bC2D+n8t-8UwD0Q++4mg98JvsJpYMmU0iC=yqr8ozWOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim <linux.tech.guy@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 13:01:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+rB6GJoUdjh9ync9LdbMMszDyCuOF2_wXN9sVOvzEzfQcvwuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mix and match parameter expansion flags and sub-scripting flags + quoting
To: zsh <zsh-users@zsh.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0ddd902a471a0561a77dc7"

--94eb2c0ddd902a471a0561a77dc7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Jim <linux.tech.guy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The intent is, using only "native zsh" tools, return the 'shell'
> > as set in /etc/passwd for my own $USER without using any external
> > utilities, gnu or otherwise. As in UNIX/Linux, zsh also has more then
> > one way of doing the same thing. So as a training exercise I decided
> > to use as many variants as I could to do the same thing. In the process
> > I found that what I though would work, did not return the intended
> > result.
>
> I haven't gone through your cases in any detail, but there are almost
> certainly three things causing your problems:
> (1) Nested expansions plus quoting cause an array in the inner
> expansion to be joined into a string in most cases, unless you use
> special syntax to preserve the array
>
(2) Single-element arrays behave like scalars (strings) in several cases
>
(3) Subscript syntax applies to scalars, to extract substrings
>
I can see this from my testing.

>
> Those last two put together can cause a lot of head-scratching.
>
> I believe I do my fair share, and not only on this.

>
> Figuring out at what level of a nested expansion you need to add (A)
> or (@) is the other part of the equation.  Sometimes you need to add
> an extra level of nesting just to force (A) to be applied to the
> correct value.
>
> AFAICT ..."${(f)"$(<TestFile)"}"... is working but it is one of those
head-scratching moments. Inner quotes, outer quotes or both inner and
outer quotes? Testing of all three, all work. I don't believe the problem
is there. The issue appears to be around the matching. The following two
statements appear to return the same line/string/scalar.

shell=${(M)"${(f)"$(<${TestFile})"}":#*:${UID}:${GID}:*}
shell=${"${(f)"$(<${TestFile})"}"[(r)*:${UID}:${GID}:*]}

Applying the subscript to the scalar returns the output I expected in both
cases.

print -l \"${shell}\" ${(t)shell} ${shell[(ws/:/)7]}

When adding the same subscript to both statements, using "nesting",
the resulting output is different for each. The first appears to return an
empty scalar, whereas the second returns the expected output.

shell=${${(M)"${(f)"$(<${TestFile})"}":#*:${UID}:${GID}:*}[(ws/:/)7]} ;
print -l \"${shell}\"

shell=${${"${(f)"$(<${TestFile})"}"[(r)*:${UID}:${GID}:*]}[(ws/:/)7]} ;
print -l \"${shell}\"

The question, for me, is why two different results, by the same subscript,
to
apparently the same output from each type of match? It seems logical
that both should work. Sorry if I'm being like a bulldog that won't let
go.  I do
have other ways that work, as shown above. I would just like to understand
why this doesn't work, even if it's do to my own, current, inability to
grasp the
logic of it.

Thanks,

Jim

--94eb2c0ddd902a471a0561a77dc7--