Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)

[Peter Stephenson <pws@ifh.de>]

schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com wrote:
> } I'm having a really hard time figuring out why zsh can't simply support the
> } `if ( ... ) { ... }' and `if [[ ... ]] { ... }' syntax all the time, and
> } always have `( ... )' mean a subshell even with that syntax; and then get
> } rid of the cshjunkieparen option.
> 
> Here's a patch that does just that -- removes cshjunkieparen, leaving the
> associated syntax supported.

I have a vague feeling there were things which later got moved to
CSH_JUNKIE_PAREN because they caused some problem with some strange sh
syntax.  However, the patch looks fairly clean and I can't see how any
valid sh syntax would fail.  Maybe the expedient of treating (..) and
{..} the usual way has fixed things up.  If I was more energetic I
would look back in the list archive.

> } If we really wanted a cshjunkieparen that meant something useful, it would
> } mean that the parens were interpreted as [[ ... ]] like so:
> } 
> } 	if ( $TERM == xterm ) then
> } 	    ...
> } 	fi

I've got lost along the way somewhere.  I thought CSH_JUNKIE_PAREN
(which I originally wrote some time ago) was once supposed to do that?
Otherwise what was the big deal?  If zsh has never treated the
parentheses as a test, why was it advertised as a csh-compatibility
feature?  If it did, why was it taken out?

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@ifh.de>       Tel: +49 33762 77366
WWW:  http://www.ifh.de/~pws/       Fax: +49 33762 77330
Deutches Electronen-Synchrotron --- Institut fuer Hochenergiephysik Zeuthen
DESY-IfH, 15735 Zeuthen, Germany.