From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2239 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2000 10:41:15 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 12 Jul 2000 10:41:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 4809 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2000 10:40:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12230 Received: (qmail 4795 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2000 10:40:27 -0000 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:40:00 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Subject: Re: Bug in ${(z)...} lexing, or what? In-reply-to: "Your message of Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:29:43 +0200." <200007121029.MAA21938@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Message-id: <0FXK00LCQYYN5Y@la-la.cambridgesiliconradio.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sven wrote: > There is still something fishy, though. A string like `ls (#i)foo' is > broken into `ls' and `(#i)foo', but `[[ (#i)foo ]]' is broken into > `[[', `(', `#i', `)', ... I haven't found out where and why this > happens yet. I can partly answer that. There's a context dependency in conditions, because a `(' may introduce the start of a pattern, as here, or it may introduce the start of a group. Luckily, the former only happens when we are expecting an argument to a test (you can't have patterns on the left of an `=' or `!=', otherwise the issue would have been unresolvable) and the latter when we are expecting a complete test, so we can check. In your example, `(' should indeed be a single token introducing a group, so the parsing is correct. I don't know exactly what happens on the right of an `=', but it's possible that in that case, too, the `(' is lexed before we decide and the string put together later, but it may also be normal. -- Peter Stephenson Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070