From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from primenet.com.au (ns1.primenet.com.au [203.24.36.2]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 808d69fb for ; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24159 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2019 12:16:53 -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: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 44738 Received: (qmail 5721 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Sep 2019 12:16:53 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.101.2/25559. spamassassin: 3.4.2. Clear:RC:0(64.147.123.20):SA:0(-2.6/5.0):. Processed in 0.726977 secs); 07 Sep 2019 12:16:53 -0000 X-Envelope-From: d.s@daniel.shahaf.name X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at daniel.shahaf.name does not designate permitted sender hosts) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= daniel.shahaf.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; s=fm1; bh=UXmprEEQ2QEzmueHn4SGI7CnNjOOJjC+5tCYls3V QTw=; b=YZjD3eN6a/BjRzafp1++ykZYkR+rSsDyhZZDux6d4zXRirniVBjlZf0j 0dfBQvmuwD2vBemhrXNmDDT61tsoTonFGWDztADzvkX+d3lvtP3b+VRZrxoh9Ho+ dp4w6UsMjDsqo3FXBxn8ORlT7bYdtL+wf57VpKHHSI1as9FSkFG18hVSQQYIAEe1 bx+YFFm7uB0FLKmmEWygtgEFUN1sj6UP9zI1i7u+pm55wmbmtic5dj/xVSLXBqBU +u5eX2ai7v89U+3TIa0N2t4ElyXswEQLIjSEB4UmNBSLfXsqrebneqZetDbWWVPf aPA4jTWj8Icij5/z4iVIBPvW5MzF7g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=UXmprEEQ2QEzmueHn4SGI7CnNjOOJjC+5tCYls3VQ Tw=; b=KBzrCULvdqNM7Ae0FZFDAEu0x8VO5uKNRyJW5OMmg5hd68hd7Rjrnsegv wzYPCg/sSOQkiKTrQgZAeYDEgpckyF7Ow6tOg+/iQe9+c86WQhtERlcQKT068RYI EH9D5J6NkPE8+CCsDxNVu4jc/uEZ2J1s61qRf9Gp6+ZqE6q5nW+xqqQkZoPSu5MI G/V7cw/iQxo2+jXNmf18VImkWdpTggTwO72r3WkwieShRqsLLVO6dMhS2cVYTRBh i3acc8OIXq/4tprlCkrznYYIK0Co3Y5+oTWALMzanHOysWgtDqaFzUE02512aZOT faIeUogvWRbKZ/rUxNkuRf3th8ULQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudekuddggeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtugfgjggfsehtkedttddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpeffrghn ihgvlhcuufhhrghhrghfuceougdrshesuggrnhhivghlrdhshhgrhhgrfhdrnhgrmhgvqe enucfkphepjeelrddujeeirdekuddrfeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegu rdhssegurghnihgvlhdrshhhrghhrghfrdhnrghmvgenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dt X-ME-Proxy: Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 12:16:16 +0000 From: Daniel Shahaf To: Sebastian Gniazdowski Cc: Zsh hackers list Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support the mksh's ${|func;} substitution Message-ID: <20190907121616.wc7wcrq62iewkgqr@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sebastian Gniazdowski wrote on Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 01:16:00 +0200: > I see no response. Is it because the substitution isn't zsh-like, ie. flag > based? I can prepare such patch, ie. assign a flag and integrate it nicely > into the zsh substitution stack. I have no opinion as to whether the feature in question would be a good addition. Assuming arguendo that it is: You forgot to update the documentation and test suite and to link us to the mksh documentation (and/or test suite — I'm assuming there will be no copyright issues with borrowing their test cases). You may wish to wait until someone weighs in on whether the substitution in question would be an acceptable addition before addressing the points from the previous paragraph. I haven't reviewed the patch beyond those points, and I'm NOT committing to reviewing further iterations.