From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8444 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2015 18:49:46 -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: 19939 Received: (qmail 22249 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2015 18:49:43 -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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=larryv.me; h= x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= mesmtp; bh=gD7gPweGzJogdbnxQ0hmeCsHSwY=; b=FViLS/cByu/iSfSpHprvB JEM+scxH0dBlIr3qNDggXoPE8CqCZsP//zOePOSuSoG0jrZGDS4rV93MK5tyU+js RqNaoN70Pi7JqrK4AdlQNhD75SjXCmyR4NxYZWZFNu+C8JJQcmZ5UaGmA6od7A+6 RpCxCbeRnUiEihnn/1V3bY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=gD7gPweGzJogdbnxQ0hmeCs HSwY=; b=j89mU6uY0DhUCb7GbnKZpEaCKmlecAZlGu7d4HCsu9dYgL4/YEU5Z6X gxDJTVMEqMfzErQ0Jvs3kBoO6jGq08XNw4XoHI2uGYUweQtsrlMQkDNeirl8y0mu BPowwBIpmuzF6fxIl+EpUfHHobhQGraSTQaqbhL1F9c7f/PRhn5U= X-Sasl-enc: 3C/K82UFCSjUesBaUYyJeIlFdXREhMU4NaPmTfq71gbU 1425235777 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Subject: Re: grammar triviality with '&&' From: =?utf-8?Q?Lawrence_Vel=C3=A1zquez?= In-Reply-To: <54F345D3.9010204@eastlink.ca> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:49:38 -0500 Cc: zsh-users@zsh.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <54F33934.2070607@eastlink.ca> <13666281425228233@web7o.yandex.ru> <54F345D3.9010204@eastlink.ca> To: Ray Andrews X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) On Mar 1, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Ray Andrews wrote: > I see, so it's not a 'hard' syntactic issue, the limitation is in the > rules for look ahead, namely that if the parser feels it has > a complete sentence then it never looks at the next line. It's not just a parser implementation detail. Lists are *defined* to terminate on newlines. From zshmisc(1): A list is a sequence of zero or more sublists, in which each sublist is terminated by `;', `&', `&|', `&!', or a newline. In your second example, `[ -e file1 ]` constitutes a list. vq