From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19628 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2014 17:38:26 -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: 18724 Received: (qmail 16602 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2014 17:38:21 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=kSlNYPI/h5KE1ILHmaMmV5f3rNEq/AvyKHH2E2qb8L4=; b=P9YF+W6ydccigbFkOd0yw/qSUItE7CwrUUs7SX9pUmI/6hhifUnWisMZaJN8TNMrZx FxKY8l40WORQ0UGOTyEPF0ANKXMOL+ZAY0gvaAe6JVNrrW7kR6e884c3ZhHToSuBLNuC CTNScP9qTCyiB3IPTC/kEO8OetV5nKEYhO7WMZkguDcwvU3lF0CsRSXfUQuOjCRjef9T pgTuutB2siwleInfcS8aLHhRWf9WVsi6irxAbToSAjNYL78v5zJA7HMVffz3Jp9lYmfW sVI1bTGeLK/EfNdU/fG3bvzlscxVOqZTC8hBsk6EA3RPiS6MadmADYXVqD8H4U9vhFvK aTaw== X-Received: by 10.58.77.238 with SMTP id v14mr2575902vew.27.1397669897585; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:38:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <140416102727.ZM19090@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <140416102727.ZM19090@torch.brasslantern.com> From: shawn wilson Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:37:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: setopt interactivecomments To: Bart Schaefer Cc: Zsh Users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Apr 16, 10:35am, shawn wilson wrote: > } > } Why is this feature disabled by default - it seems like enabling and > } allowing it to be disabled (since the behavior works in other shells) > } would be the correct way to do things? > > It's disabled because it always has been, and therefore enabling it might > break longstanding usage. > > It has always been disabled because zsh originated as a way to bring > Bourne shell syntax to students who had been introduced to BSD Unix > via [t]csh, and csh does not have interactive comments. A lot of the > default behaviors and interactive design of zsh derive from Paul Falstad > (the original author) making subjective judgements about what were the > best features of csh and sh, rather than about what features were the > most common in other sh clones. So if I want to know what ideas are based on, I should refer to how FBSD tcsh and sh behave and not how Bash on Linux functions? Or as far as this type of thing is concerned, it would stay either way because it was an original implementation decision? (obviously, because of the former, the later becomes moot, but I'm curious what the current mindset of development is)