From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21699 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2010 21:58:04 -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: 27854 Received: (qmail 25272 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2010 21:58:02 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at spodhuis.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spodhuis.org; s=d200912; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=55AgEiKN+pBvuAq4k/iu1eeY6bGlyvOeGAS6/5tauHo=; b=BeFCDmhyPwAKjEgcB6Zot6HTmMByPgNpaD83GMXECiKefKo5p4kLuzoVzcPepKV0jl0x1EItaiFNmJH31kAeeHL3rR3fHnPbduaG6lpfyCQb+1iFUspWNPK/X3BV5mooGzWndQoACWYWJ6L+ppjmPHJRTgTkv87qXcxDsXTMYws=; Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:57:53 -0700 From: Phil Pennock To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Is this a bug? Why not? Message-ID: <20100401215752.GA34619@redoubt.spodhuis.org> Mail-Followup-To: Bart Schaefer , zsh-workers@zsh.org References: <100330224612.ZM1818@torch.brasslantern.com> <20100331060602.GA91691@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <100331081153.ZM2688@torch.brasslantern.com> <20100401082624.GA56998@redoubt.spodhuis.org> <100401073618.ZM10593@torch.brasslantern.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <100401073618.ZM10593@torch.brasslantern.com> On 2010-04-01 at 07:36 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Apr 1, 1:26am, Phil Pennock wrote: > } Subject: Re: Is this a bug? Why not? > } > } On 2010-03-31 at 08:11 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } > Incidentally, this came up because of a discussion on the POSIX standards > } > mailing list (austin-group) in which David Korn just asserted that he'd > } > like to add the syntax ${"var"} which means to expand the value of var > } > as if it's quoted (what zsh's normal mode does all the time). > } > > } > I was hoping to be able to say "Oh, zsh already has syntax XYZ for that" > } > but in fact we don't -- zsh either always, or never, does it, depending > } > on the globsubst option; there's no way to flip globsubst on the fly. > } > } No *neat* syntax. > } > } % ls > } lib viewvc.conf > } % print -l ${~~foo-${(~):-*}} > > That isn't really what you mean, is it? The (~) flag only applies to > the (j::) et al. strings. Oh, interesting, I missed that glob_subst wasn't affecting the default at all. > However, it's not even necessary to do the ${:-*} thing, ${~~foo-*} is > sufficient. Okay, *phew*, I did understand the problem statement. > For austin-group purposes, however, I was hoping for something that did > not rely on parameter expansion flags. E.g., why doesn't the following > cause $foo to be quoted? > > schaefer[516] ARGV0=sh Src/zsh > $ foo="???" > $ print ${foo+"$foo"} > Doc Etc Src > $ > > It works in bash. Defining "works" as seeing ??? emitted: it works in zsh with glob_subst disabled. It works in FreeBSD /bin/sh ... Is this use-case important enough to warrant yet another option? -Phil