From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6470 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2017 21:25:25 -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: 22419 Received: (qmail 6105 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2017 21:25:25 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mercury.zanshin.com 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(64.84.47.142):SA:0(-0.0/5.0):. Processed in 1.594242 secs); 24 Jan 2017 21:25:25 -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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: schaefer@brasslantern.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at ipost.com designates 64.84.47.142 as permitted sender) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:24:42 -0800 (PST) From: Bart Schaefer Reply-To: Bart Schaefer To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: Avoiding the zshells intelligence...in one case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20170122080153.GA5042@solfire> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) X-Face: "f/X=UCVgd*^c>+x(gMq0at?e:woX+;'snkkRzc3SX<0AZ (/PS4.M2hzGS9X:Qj]at_H/%a9K}:-eS<"v_7vX84PG9Bf Zpb`wI!I4geY=or+nWq`3CX`oq&TJR;g^ps|7(MH?jh;bs %vHJfCh5>a*6Re5m|Bidja\\o]>n\A)ib1:yX*T`zR(*h~ %tOw<~!D9{e6h!8M2:d8G2@K>y^1I_Vdy\d\MYe]z7c MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 24 Jan 2017, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Bart Schaefer wrote: > > > > re_nomatch() { { ${~@} } always { setopt nomatch } } > > alias t='setopt nonomatch && noglob re_nomatch echo' > > Why is this risky? Because it can leave nomatch in the wrong state? Because if you accidentally use it in a pipeline it'll throw away its standard input, and if you use it in a complex && || series it may not produce the expected result. Both of which are even worse if instead of "&&" you use a ";" as you did in your more complicated formulation.