From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22809 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2009 15:14:00 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 26 Mar 2009 15:14:00 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 66280 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2009 15:13:53 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 26 Mar 2009 15:13:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 21056 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2009 15:13:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26796 Received: (qmail 21042 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2009 15:13:44 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 26 Mar 2009 15:13:44 -0000 Received: from vms173009pub.verizon.net (vms173009pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.9]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705CF80590EB for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:13:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from torch.brasslantern.com ([96.249.201.13]) by vms173009.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KH400GVUCXPDSFE@vms173009.mailsrvcs.net> for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:13:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from torch.brasslantern.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2QFCxGj009241 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:13:00 -0700 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id n2QFCxKS009240 for zsh-workers@sunsite.dk; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:12:59 -0700 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <090326081259.ZM9239@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:12:59 -0700 In-reply-to: <20090326095029.52a8ce33@news01> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: Bug#517008: alias not expanded with zsh -c" (Mar 26, 9:50am) References: <20090225022850.GA4841@vin.lip.ens-lyon.fr> <20090325145418.GB9330@scru.org> <200903251630.n2PGU8sK013449@news01.csr.com> <20090325172509.79c53d4d@news01> <090325111130.ZM7836@torch.brasslantern.com> <200903251820.n2PIK6JI016478@news01.csr.com> <090325171431.ZM8037@torch.brasslantern.com> <20090326095029.52a8ce33@news01> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Bug#517008: alias not expanded with zsh -c MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/9169/Thu Mar 26 05:13:48 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean On Mar 26, 9:50am, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: Bug#517008: alias not expanded with zsh -c } } On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:14:31 -0700 } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > It just seems to me that we're potentially penalizing a script that } > does not use aliases in the can't-open-tempfile case in order to } > support a script that does not use aliases. In case it wasn't obvious, there's an extra "not" in that last line. } > Given potential security problems with using tempfiles and the } > likelyhood of a script using an alias vs. the likelyhood of file } > creation failing, which case ought we be catering too? Good grief, I was having a bad typing day yesterday. Must be because I was home sick at the time ... } From what I've heard, it doesn't sound like it's worth more than a } warning. } } +other piece of shell code evaluated as one unit. Note this may } +cause differences from other shells even when the option is in } +effect. For example, when running a command with `tt(zsh -c)' the } +entire command argument is parsed in one go, so aliases defined within Is it obvious enough that "evaluated as one unit" and "parsed in one go" mean the same thing? And should that be tt(sh -c) rather than zsh?