Re: Alias named '='

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>]

On Oct 9,  4:20pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Alias named '='
}
} On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 15:04:47 +0000
} Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
} > Peter Stephenson wrote on Mon, 09 Oct 2017 15:49 +0100:
} > > Should we say something like this, or is it simply adding more words for
} > > people to say they can't be bothered to read it?
} > 
} > I think this section should describe the common, and
} > less-common-but-still-sane, use-cases before it discusses corner cases
} > such as aliasing "((", "&&", and "x=y".
} 
} So we could do something like this?

This doesn't describe what the question/discussion was about, does it?

torch% aliases[=]='echo equal'
torch% =
equal

The text you've written isn't wrong about assignment interpretation, but
it implies that the above would not work.  The problem with the above is
that the alias *builtin* can't deal with it, not that it's a problem in
command position.

Also I'm abivalent about moving the text about about the "((" token as
that is closely related to the dicussion about global aliasing of other
operator-like tokens.