From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from primenet.com.au (ns1.primenet.com.au [203.24.36.2]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id b0f23ea5 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29512 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2019 13:18:14 -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: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 24332 Received: (qmail 18074 invoked by uid 1010); 9 Oct 2019 13:18:14 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-vk1-f174.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.101.2/25594. spamassassin: 3.4.2. Clear:RC:0(209.85.221.174):SA:0(-2.0/5.0):. Processed in 2.380531 secs); 09 Oct 2019 13:18:14 -0000 X-Envelope-From: sgniazdowski@gmail.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.221.174 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QkyRAMrI/Om3vDNwfqssjk+P92bBSNPeaezPGVK1Tms=; b=pgfy6H0BVGvfrFi8bz3EMTxZFnBaltY8U2AkKCngZMnQIPV+OcIgzvz0X4CyZHd0VZ G7yrw9iDM89SvFWDokaxBZOqQrCnNpN3LmGceTqUpbSLiWtLfLCkAidap9FdIqNCUN3I uNYd7cGj4tjdRoxD3Kll+k8Ce5QTcRZUidcpiU1oJlt63QldO8gROd1xk1s+0gbIAoci YgPTc2L5DWZswzgzTc91EV+ah6c7J7Kw75YeU7Cr9xmMN79d5gVXIltGRf9Q0x8wY1ZM j9pFli30stW/dSayKVCZga1Ad4D1VXVV4IcWxtPFzUZyTEFPiTdgd7JTP5MdxrTpBZBH jQpg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QkyRAMrI/Om3vDNwfqssjk+P92bBSNPeaezPGVK1Tms=; b=izwVnkDnBSIaVPpdMVNZAym8C019y9U2dZ0R/maOR4Cj14mXFnyvhjNxRuNK3Mw1va ylnTi1gJkLFMOxvVU65/kdDWxdEMEAbUqSwWsvY24BhJFcHyfYpPgqlrYMlGBRD/hnrB UOjFwZAnGrdLWBLUTyofkvYLzAQKYt4bDr4SUsSD25Udwq8z9IVcWaTBzDzMV10PtNTt la04235eiW41UGNGUGU+BnSa9/NqYXxjVDeIEh7Ui8zosZsJt6JDixxLlKWB21InbmKZ InKPOoUl22tY9OvFySIFsaAri4w+TSt7i27Ji9JsOFTJcUs442Y0Tm0wGcKOFvEdqFKM 5DGw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWbXZXHA0A9ds8ZCyOIHy1iSpaYuYFwKGiNJJYTiZPkZ1xfl0j6 cpLAu+zv2g3yzhSHjd0g3V6ctsy4+dfKMw22JZeT2w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz1gWbD7jUeLuSodgMRsq8dp0aW5ua4w9aeptgtlN9Uj2pfzboFwUJoN3Z/HyKjZkMmhatducWXZ68QyxvqvGs= X-Received: by 2002:ac5:cb62:: with SMTP id l2mr1956240vkn.32.1570627057784; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 06:17:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Sebastian Gniazdowski Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:17:28 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Feature request: a new warning option To: Roman Perepelitsa Cc: Zsh Users Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 14:08, Roman Perepelitsa wrote: > > Warns if `x && y || z` cannot be proven through static analysis to > be equivalent to `if x; then y; else z; fi`. > > Doesn't this strike you as odd? If the latter construct has the > desired semantics, why not use it in the first place? It'll obviate > the need for a new warning and convey the intention to humans reading > the code. The x && y || z is less verbose. It doesn't require `then' and `else' and `fi'. I'm writing from my point of view =E2=80=93 that are the reasons = why I use &&/||. --=20 Sebastian Gniazdowski News: https://twitter.com/ZdharmaI IRC: https://kiwiirc.com/client/chat.freenode.net:+6697/#zplugin Blog: http://zdharma.org