From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5980 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2016 17:33:54 -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: 39025 Received: (qmail 4386 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2016 17:33:54 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(209.85.220.49):SA:0(0.0/5.0):. Processed in 0.168212 secs); 11 Aug 2016 17:33:54 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: schaefer@brasslantern.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at brasslantern.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brasslantern-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments:references:to:subject :mime-version; bh=YisdaHrR1h+Vthutulunzd3ezs9YjlYyO1buNRDCpLU=; b=A1IuihMr8PiE0guirhw27szwG0qsw2c/loZwFavYvV2bTP6JjMc/VVyaHsjMjBqRtr x5loOT8OUpJ1W/7ClROk5Z9teReYE6AzqRvCGFdR01bx6usDb+FffSj5rL7h+WETmTiH 5iW/wXTPyhiOC8Mh84iNfLfViHZjov8AWGVmw0pSFbYb2XZzaD0CfNmekaJ6d1MWMqHz L4cHCpLPYnjRcWkyPLDT/QQ0qx8c3Ex5CtJ86nWErukDOmby0EdWO0m5oWyqQVj39rk8 bAS4bJ4JuQHxsrz9acMyUtWSGAXWxhwhqesdjb6uWVw0qSLLe9cbJoiA8r2Kg7h4Bhd7 SgAQ== 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; bh=YisdaHrR1h+Vthutulunzd3ezs9YjlYyO1buNRDCpLU=; b=my+ckQOnrhe8bpIvVEW6uJRrAHuJc/HDY9xV4j+IPYaPJU9AMiCCr1bz/+5LmCAf/z tdojpsfw8c/sLAVEwabhJLRVjuNbwikd3IBJzCN2lvnTg4etaA1mwwJc5P0WxCO0uAbF bCdetwESv1jyU1yEJDM3Hvo3ocVuJBxk5K/i5NMS0L0yEUSU4ozcdH6nYH7mhMNjfLx5 n3/7SWDVaCowgnANPfoqRiHL+gBEa8UkYZwzJQg8NiCKRfh5zhhY3hPWemh3E7wG2agJ 3bZuysl3qmLcV4yr5pCFU91kfVdLmrcJi/PDohHkcGe11VVdBheI+CxHbT3Ujar93hA2 RWlw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvj8HvzxxAYFyDNAtPUMDnQK97ePM/Q1OELT+3jX1SvOu3OUf9QzI0rA3sL5aS+sQ== X-Received: by 10.66.134.131 with SMTP id pk3mr19156706pab.90.1470936486094; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:28:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <160811102803.ZM2533@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:28:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160811110545.1b066d2f@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "Re: [bug] shwordsplit not working on $@ when $# > 1" (Aug 11, 11:05am) References: <20160808111626.GA19766@chaz.gmail.com> <20160808192734.21923640@ntlworld.com> <160808182124.ZM9355@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160809094013.01f0f5f8@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <160810102836.ZM15324@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160811110545.1b066d2f@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [bug] shwordsplit not working on $@ when $# > 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 11, 11:05am, Peter Stephenson wrote: } Subject: Re: [bug] shwordsplit not working on $@ when $# > 1 } } On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:28:36 -0700 } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > torch% print -l ${(@s.:.)x} } > a:b } > c d } > ef } } I think it should only cause a visible effect in double quotes as that's } its real point --- though I wouldn't be surprised if there were already } exceptions. It's hard to see how it could be interpreted to mean ignore } the (s.:.), even if there are double quotes. I think this is fixed by workers/39019, but I did not add any tests that use double-quoting. Should there be some? } To be clear: it is not a conflict that SHWORDSPLIT behaviour and } (s...) behaviour differ from one another, e.g. with respect to forced } [joining], only if expressions involving the same modifications to } ${(@)x} and $@ differ when the contents of the arrays and the contexts } are the same. Agreed, but I'm still not sure the test suite covers that ... } > Then there's this weird edge case, where an empty $IFS acts like you } > have specified the (@) flag when shwordsplit is set: } > } > torch% IFS= } > torch% setopt shwordsplit } > torch% print -l ${(s.:.)x} } > a:b } > c d } > ef } } Hmm... I would guess that what's happened is without an IFS forced } joining with a default separator fails, and because it didn't get joined } we refuse to split it To clarify, the above edge case was introduced by the (never-committed) patch in 39009, and should have been avoided by the patch in 39019. } I would think the most logical answer here is it should have been joined } with no separator and then split, but I doubt this has ever been thought } about before. This is still broken after 39019 (sigh) because IFS= plus shwordsplit implies that joining should not happen in other circumstances, and we only split after joining, so that unintentionally bleeds into this. I thought I'd got it worked out and that the tests I added covered it, but trying this specific example again still fails. Back to prodding at it, I guess.