From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id IAA13439 for <mason@werple.mira.net.au>; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:35:13 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA04647; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Anthony Heading <aheading@jpmorgan.com>
Message-Id: <199607022227.XAA25585@gmp-etpres1.uk.jpmorgan.com>
Subject: Re: Tag functions with shell options?
To: schaefer@nbn.com
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 23:27:35 +0100 (BST)
Cc: aheading@jpmorgan.com, zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
In-Reply-To: <960702143114.ZM5210@candle.brasslantern.com> from "Bart Schaefer" at Jul 2, 96 02:31:10 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"X9xOu.0.X81.vBQsn"@euclid>
Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu> archive/latest/1516
X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu

Bart wrote:
> 
> } The lack of context was sort-of deliberate, since I
> } suspected any interest would be in the wider picture, rather than my
> } particular petty problems.  It seemed simply an example of something
> } it would be nice to support elegantly.
> 
> This introduces a whole class of problems, which is most obvious in the
> case when you *do not* know the names of the functions that should have
> their local options (or whatever) changed.  In that case you almost end
> up needing something like Perl's "package".

Right. I guess this is like what I would have thought of doing as a sort of
closure.  So a function, when defined, would snapshot its option-environment.

function setup() {
  setopt local_options closure_options sh_word_split
  . /someone/elses/setup/file.sh
}


> Because the alias for yfn was introduced *after* xfn1 was defined, xfn1
> still references the "real" yfn, rather than the alias.  The presumption
> is that if you're going to use

OK. As if aliases are resolved at parse-time. Or something. Perhaps they are.
I should RTFS. But I understand now. 

Thank-you all.

A