From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4336 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2001 19:59:36 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 27 Mar 2001 19:59:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7154 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2001 19:59:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13803 Received: (qmail 7130 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2001 19:59:17 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1010327195840.ZM14429@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:58:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to Zefram "Re: "setopt noexec" and interactive shells" (Mar 27, 8:25pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: "setopt noexec" and interactive shells MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 27, 8:25pm, Zefram wrote: } Subject: Re: "setopt noexec" and interactive shells } } *grumble*. What's anyone ever going to use noexec for other than syntax } checking? Well, yes, exactly. Isn't it possible that you'd like to check the syntax of a function you have defined in an interactive shell? } I'd prefer that we give the option a consistent behaviour. The consistent behavior I was thinking of is that commands entered at a shell prompt (e.g. through ZLE) are never affected by `noexec' whereas all other commands are. How is that any less consistent than, say, the SHINSTDIN behavior we were just discussing? } For the record, pdksh makes no such distinction between commands in a } function and commands at the top level Right, but ksh doesn't have `localoptions'. I don't mean to be making too big a deal of this, but I want to be sure we can explain/defend whatever implementation eventually results. -- 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