From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16389 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2015 13:56:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 34997 Received: (qmail 2762 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2015 13:56:05 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) 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 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments :references:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=qrcnMoUOJ1YR7jz385GYtPrP7BOAcp9D1GoTxYJ64/8=; b=e2+XGVNMGe2oBenUPKoOJBBh0b1DnvU8vUixw9Ir8ZbnXjwfHPRL1aIgxOSOOzW4XX z7vuC+9C6FO8LzZrll4doMsGHDFrgs4HoVjcm/xyd1O/MqHv7cwwksl9h1sdH7bmCMat vwnpKR5DyQj4maXGV7Qyu62JuUrbSP2koQEOSFmdhfePdny9YFRiL7WbP1kdPJ8OT2KG bxtcP18lD9NHqm9Tx48xkShsDp+UCdYU0l4gVgxVGjCTq2GIISRmQlZos1VlYaBYcu3p JbaXbfN1E1YJxCWAwOzq1uCyMD9Fp74m+oTJm38/5GFsTzYqMbnEZ1JlSzSBlQG70HY2 q1/A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6SEYGBfAyFzb6ekpkaiHmQPquH9gNfIwGKzs/haBJL5DC3zScJrEW7UeAg/l8BaI0/QRO X-Received: by 10.202.91.11 with SMTP id p11mr17729030oib.125.1430315759584; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:55:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <150429065556.ZM31553@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:55:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20150429113602.374240c7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: [BUG] Can't mark unset variables as read-only" (Apr 29, 11:36am) References: <55407BBF.6020401@inlv.org> <20150429113602.374240c7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [BUG] Can't mark unset variables as read-only MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Apr 29, 11:36am, Peter Stephenson wrote: } } +Note that in zsh (unlike other shells) it is still possible } +to create a local variable of the same name as this is considered a } +different variable (though this variable, too, can be marked readonly). Hrm, I wonder if that, combined with "typeset" automatically creating locals when called in a function context (also a POSIX incompatibility?) defeats the whole purpose of an unset readonly? Actually it probably undermines readonly for variables that are set, too, so I probably shouldn't worry about it because it isn't changing.