From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7429 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2016 09:06:50 -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: 40151 Received: (qmail 18561 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2016 09:06:50 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-ua0-f182.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(209.85.217.182):SA:0(-0.0/5.0):. Processed in 1.32748 secs); 11 Dec 2016 09:06:50 -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=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_PASS,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: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender) 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=8lXbt2xNpmJ8NcTQFxsIgDFh/HGFh0DiVbMIM3NxyjY=; b=rlhT8SH95Kzu0ERpeogOnHZ1xg1Am669WmGqk29y6C6h6XqU1ZI3dpWddPRJRPDfGb wD/3DxKaa1i1QHV5ZwY2BnxdebB9GJvGjwTfRK5oJN/5fLbrNVnbArY/hDJFF8qXEyOu KWGDTUnzQ1Mkzh26pNT8ggDIWAN99qb5IyUjOg+fvti8Y0p/2ZPucdgV7l/N/oBSSpaP 0RahUEvJVD3KATN/SA9aw86C3HYroNGQGSTUnEjmMSfP+cGYkCu+5t+DMbMsTjqYEIvb sfsfC/f/TqCFMb02GsFxj0jcmi8iWyZJlwOfgGx8XAmmWX4AtzhOfwTbvc180nYyHY5C ht7A== 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=8lXbt2xNpmJ8NcTQFxsIgDFh/HGFh0DiVbMIM3NxyjY=; b=eNv1uH8El7F+Jtu0i1F6DqfHGskzi7wrsGHZAVWOHZQG1t7RmOU29hBHTunngW1iZ9 YEamiuOZhydKBY5xup8Y++3FTjkYr5Z9UmHhWYcX4gxsSSSpP27ljOzJ6ad3zwZOnt3V Op5JQ8un6bKOeHTRePTVoDM8NX+DRZ8UmdG8BhF6KcmhxyxzeQDGKTH9mo/QUxGVVvX/ MUv/HxVnebZZ/IW1ZfhAsV3uxBfRvHGioY4KCh8JLW3q3anPZUiLZNJoEACkT3Xmrm22 mUsN5y980INTk8pt/Xlt6PmapaGkBoUgvUQxwAD2BFbZzgDZdYD9Mfr9Wl9jsO0wpvJq StoA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC001MGX8dUsyjSW7gALNV8Mqx5vQamHelUzRNZF7g7q4hNjZMyScIMvPi0kKxJQkPA== X-Received: by 10.176.82.118 with SMTP id j51mr66984203uaa.161.1481446700280; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 00:58:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <161211005840.ZM27127@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 00:58:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20161211041119.GA32167@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> Comments: In reply to Daniel Shahaf "Re: zsh-5.2-test-3" (Dec 11, 4:11am) References: <20161206194916.10448440@ntlworld.com> <20161209095729.2033b5be@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20161209195457.27e43234@ntlworld.com> <584CB4EF.6070904@eastlink.ca> <161210190737.ZM11109@torch.brasslantern.com> <584CC779.7000207@eastlink.ca> <161210194421.ZM26380@torch.brasslantern.com> <20161211041119.GA32167@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: zsh-5.2-test-3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Dec 11, 4:11am, Daniel Shahaf wrote: } Subject: Re: zsh-5.2-test-3 } } Bart Schaefer wrote on Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 19:44:21 -0800: } > Actually -- why is that test in B02 in the first place, rather than in } > say D04parameter.ztst ? } } Because it's about assignment, as opposed to substitution? Then why isn't in it A06assign ? (Because it's not really about assignment, either -- it's about a special-parameter side-effect.) } If there's a better home for the test I don't mind moving it. It probably ought to be in A05execution, or maybe we need a new test file just for behavior of assorted special parameters. C06specials ? Incidentally, assigning to USERNAME attempts to change both UID and GID and is still only a warning, not an error. Further, if setuid() and setgid() aren't available, assignments to UID et al. silently do nothing, which is probably why failure of set?id() when available was never a hard error before. Passing thought, mostly unrelated: There should be tests of "getopts" in B08shift. I believe we still have some incompatibility with POSIX in OPTIND/OPTARG handling it would be nice to have an example of the current behavior with some mention of the difference in case we get around to fixing it.