From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27265 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2013 22:44:01 -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: 31847 Received: (qmail 3369 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2013 22:43:55 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tEd13g5M4pOYMpXRbpg1tfPn6+cZRB2ITgYRIXHsW9I=; b=JLV8X/x9GeH8yy3NvNPOWEObptctDtYPo8x+VhI85nogsb9wXI/CXiArkWW61smKFj 6arIlOKQUw7OJdU03Q2iyBZ8gOXynYRCvby7RRVfC2XqUUKQeJYhzpAxPOzHvjEo7Osk 2dWV6Al2I/21GAFrHtiUZgWA3D2w/QNj4v92y9kD2wKAko6oAfb4qUqQqeB5FGbhOOtu UsReZ8aIn7zGjqt9c0DhBXviVFhXGd10JUf2mc3umJ02skBBOF+VSxReG9wkk9jRQdQx ZKAKtDoj2fb0ez5YwRslYNZz5zzH87spqXHVrBdQzNWH1JTYSQsmlJwn6EZ8ZSxFYbY1 fMEA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmgtP9J6bdoUP35P66rVsM7qpbOTDMaareOjy6iGHCa9D542EtaWuYsYun7xDgqD1rxYP2D X-Received: by 10.15.44.202 with SMTP id z50mr5649802eev.68.1382136233310; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:43:53 -0700 (PDT) X-ProxyUser-IP: 86.6.157.246 Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:43:51 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: zsh syntax check fails on correct if [[ usage (rhbz 966911) Message-ID: <20131018234351.600adfc6@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <131018122000.ZM9018@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <52613F82.1000009@redhat.com> <131018084831.ZM8783@torch.brasslantern.com> <20131018165614.48f399b7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <131018122000.ZM9018@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:20:00 -0700 Bart Schaefer wrote: > Well, yeah, but it's really strange that in some cases it executes NOTHING, > and in other very similar cases it executes the tests and assignments, and > it's really not obvious why there's a difference. All sounds like the execsimple() optimisation mayhem --- it's all a little bit funny what's considered "simple" and what isn't. I've committed the fix for that --- see if any of the funnies you spotted persist. pws