From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20768 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2018 21:45:29 -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: 23156 Received: (qmail 11446 invoked by uid 1010); 20 Feb 2018 21:45:28 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mta04.eastlink.ca 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(24.224.136.10):SA:0(-2.6/5.0):. Processed in 1.360385 secs); 20 Feb 2018 21:45:28 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: rayandrews@eastlink.ca X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=dfKuI0fe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RnRVsdTsRxS/hkU0yKjOWA==:117 a=RnRVsdTsRxS/hkU0yKjOWA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=P0HSoB6uIBUF8B0lkLUA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-EL-IP-NOAUTH: 24.207.101.9 Subject: Re: &&|| To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <64c5472a-b174-00b6-7ab0-b65d664be675@eastlink.ca> <20180219215726.4c25cc7d@ntlworld.com> <20180220092659.2233e6ef@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20180220170734.7f428bd6@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> From: Ray Andrews Message-id: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:45:24 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 In-reply-to: Content-language: en-CA On 20/02/18 12:28 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: That was a master class in logic.  Thank you Sensei. >> ignored as far as truth tests on the left of any && or ||. > No, that's entirely wrong. Braces always return the final status of > the enclosed list of statements. && and || always use the final > status of the entire chain of any && or || to their left. The two are > related only when the braces surround another chain of && or || but > only in so far as that affects the final status of the braces. Yes, I get it.  I was asking/expecting the braces to throw decision leftward to the preceding '&&' whereas they properly create a { combined truth test } to be thrown rightward to the following '||'  exactly as they should! So the fact that one can often set up an &&/|| structure that looks very much like an if/else structure, and the fact that they will very often behave the same way, does not make them logically identical!!  I feel purified of a sin ;-) Thanks Peter too, I know I flog these things to death. >