Re: "setopt noexec" and interactive shells

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>]

On Mar 27,  7:09pm, Zefram wrote:
} Subject: Re: "setopt noexec" and interactive shells
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} >There's no way to make the option un-, or rather re-, settable because
} >once you're not executing commands the state of the shell is effectively
} >frozen.
} 
} By "unsettable" I meant that the shell does not permit one to change
} the state of the option.

Aha.  But, unlike `interactive', there's no reason not to allow `noexec'
to become set in a shell function, provided that it's going to be restored
again by `localoptions' when the function exits.

That was why my original (some weeks ago) patch reset the option just
before the prompt was printed, rather than disabling it at some lower
level.

} I'm basically happy with your patch (or the revised version) in
} that it retains the state of NO_EXEC and simply denies it effect,
} the way ksh does.
} 
} As I suggested above, I'd prefer that that condition be
} 
} 	    if (unset(EXECOPT) && unset(INTERACTIVE))

That's fine with me, too, but I'd still like to hear any thoughts you
have on making `noexec' work within a shell function.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net