From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 20285 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2021 11:04:22 -0000 Received: from zero.zsh.org (2a02:898:31:0:48:4558:7a:7368) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 14 Apr 2021 11:04:22 -0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; cv=none; a=rsa-sha256; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; t=1618398262; b=lXDLvlbSVzX1Lcx/H519nAwejGlDKYkJFevMX30MonGoS0lorQxZ7jQJhs2MZXuuTk5Z3DF0Zv 9Q5IKWukaNR5kL4KqcL+Thbz8wkGOTuE/FgsNscIzo12ppdW9T+g1x0wj1NT4OUcNM3fdQqYF2 OFcrnQdq/rkj/fv/yEVwA6pnHh716ItpnATIVp/jxZnnAejPuvkRrTe20qe7LfWGnPWOjImiTQ 81YY6+5ZojIGj6bB4Us5cB4C2Xo6pWYUhFin75hrZT/0DC5LyjvRuB3I/adzCIQCqIO6OIG2UC JYCzfLTGH5mWVXldKZe97LgInVYfL1pC31LXssUDJESNEw==; ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; zsh.org; iprev=pass (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com) smtp.remote-ip=66.111.4.25; dkim=pass header.d=daniel.shahaf.name header.s=fm3 header.a=rsa-sha256; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.a=rsa-sha256; dmarc=none header.from=daniel.shahaf.name; arc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; t=1618398262; bh=P4lH4omT5lslYLQaWnTqyynDvYJVncI69vbUEatLbxY=; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Help: List-Id:Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature; b=PrnqhXCyPB0U3FRHggVuMVaGqU5CY9oCPoEx8e/gPE0T+/BDpbudLJn2I6NJopVNev0IujbBtP dDivlWwNcyCU395yPuYFMSFatVxfL5pw8xkqNSlTZoQ63rqoMEJO+CHoixH1LEn0CLEBM+L0Wu JsyXoTJ8TzLr+w2WT8xx4KKCDqX8KLvQR255iE7mWxRmJf5uVoMAixeiCM95b+Tq9JWZKKbB54 3t7TeGK5pl9BHYDD98CKqg/ljt9fCh76odX7d6DF01GhdQLHbR6sEgS0JfcUqd9sYd93HlCsMi w/cvDTrM3aOZnQGn99mlz/NsK7UkwpD3jR0EbaDWhHFZ9g==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Id:Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=vCk7WBDlRabf7PXOdwn/vEHtpl4e+KuWss+fYmlo8PE=; b=eB1QPtxpRt/eoXrugaKsCU7WP5 bP6XTzUy2xxBlYBdkwpG/5QFOq1ibzjrkRPxIEGT7EbKbk1+rZfc1+soyuLf52F20dPcmIh3WOZ4x 7u4lLu8wv7/F/78mVo7QdK1ly/rIznfGaO2dDQ5QMIz74UFVRrKhQPahRi80ZILE+3u6EKYHmvXuC xMcR6+VWAbdql8kv6noYHpMcChTMJJZHjEL0Wdts12OPxpubNIzguPjqf/LRW/z2MXd66LsaupDMS X+UxZ4wk1xGbqZpSzI7llbZetxJULDO9klhAvEgN1EqvVGS0H1w6bc20Y35XRpORYn3PDq3R8eBHo iPtPFASw==; Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with local id 1lWdJh-000Lo1-5z; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:04:17 +0000 Authentication-Results: zsh.org; iprev=pass (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com) smtp.remote-ip=66.111.4.25; dkim=pass header.d=daniel.shahaf.name header.s=fm3 header.a=rsa-sha256; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.a=rsa-sha256; dmarc=none header.from=daniel.shahaf.name; arc=none Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:58915) by zero.zsh.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1lWdJR-000La5-Vo; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:04:03 +0000 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808115C016A; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:03:59 -0400 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=fm3; bh=vCk7WBDlRabf7PXOdwn/vEHtpl4e+KuWss+fYmlo 8PE=; b=ROWzgvIsn7eiemFWj0vX+k35yJkj9g54Vi51+LqePJGqyP19QjlIDcw3 yOchWIXLyoytwNHuds61ZxlIJCfnOx9v+tOetwpYF9bqcxyKXpS4iMKZiLCfuCBA hE2Q0vaDszE3tWGrBL8zY0eOgQKhj7NC2M8r4DX2y3V3WeArUg0j0lnc0erJyTJz huNWYIXjoLNq+n/62jUyYmaT0r85++P/Nd9WFOBnRkFZ2UBM9h8Aj1mFTHYOeVfA IQLn+GDtkYanL2TRiCUsnwR1Y+YIAz4HgfQrzpLSOI9MfrAYH4AHYmWjyzqMkShq toNMacWef58E6nNBArPbEXdQPd5QFg== 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=fm2; bh=vCk7WBDlRabf7PXOdwn/vEHtpl4e+KuWss+fYmlo8 PE=; b=ZSmpWL1DB/nDrpYdnIXAuh+HdGRr3Dn6bsIXU8SdglYimx9cUBC2IFq8y Avtub1N41AFga95p3l8pWIjeaPiuBAGacqi/ZTwE9Ku25lEFxeK5Sp3x5ULuFig9 iL+M8DqOxhWfQlf3hNpThOv/FwnZ9ycr9/0K2VEWoh+m1Acniw2McHro8S/KMQ4I CD7S9q/Nd+CSW9OsW0THWDnuf5v/rhU+n0s6qBoxlJXAIHfPpVmjEtOmLB/3ykEz rbv7c0nzrKDo8Eot+BZ/50hLyd76swvEDCFgkvy8ZB8pDQ6GECLTGeDIystm5eWD /M7Rt5FC16fTTe4zITKI6wNrHQ/QQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeluddgfeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggugfgjfgesth ektddttderudenucfhrhhomhepffgrnhhivghlucfuhhgrhhgrfhcuoegurdhssegurghn ihgvlhdrshhhrghhrghfrdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheefvdffjeeghf eigeffueffjeelhfdvkeejueeuleefjedvleelheettdefieegnecuffhomhgrihhnpehg ihhthhhusgdrtghomhenucfkphepuddtledrieeirdeifedrvdeftdenucevlhhushhtvg hrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegurdhssegurghnihgvlhdr shhhrghhrghfrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 (bzq-109-66-63-230.red.bezeqint.net [109.66.63.230]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A67261080067; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by tarpaulin.shahaf.local2 (Postfix, from userid 1005) id 4FL03006GWz43s; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:03:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:03:55 +0000 From: Daniel Shahaf To: zeurkous@volny.cz Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: patch: zshmisc(1) clarify non-successful exit statuses Message-ID: <20210414110355.GA31655@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> References: <20210411141520.4ABA89D5@volny.cz> <20210413155236.GR6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <20210413200341.D91B3837@volny.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20210413200341.D91B3837@volny.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Seq: 48561 Archived-At: X-Loop: zsh-workers@zsh.org Errors-To: zsh-workers-owner@zsh.org Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Sender: zsh-workers-request@zsh.org X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: zeurkous@volny.cz wrote on Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 20:03:41 +0200: > "Daniel Shahaf" wrote: > > Thanks for the patch. Review: > > > > zeurkous@volny.cz wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 14:15:20 +0200: > >> #?patch > >> # > > > > What's this header line? Is this a standard format for unidiffs with > > log messages? Should Functions/VCS_Info/VCS_INFO_patch2subject grow > > support for it? > > No, it's a "shehuh" (me own convention), to indicate the format (in this > case: input to patch(1)). Ignore it if you wish. The rest of the '#' > lines are just comments (meknows patch(1) will relay && discard any > lines before the actual patch, but IMO it shouldn't, hence the prefix). > > patch(1) will eat all this fine (at least it does on me side). Every patch(1) implementation in the last few decades behaves this way. > > zsh's source code is in git. git's interchange format is `[PATCH]' in > > the subject line, then in the body, everything up to a "---" line is > > part of the log message, and everything after is not. See > > git-format-patch(1) for details. > > Thanks, but me doesn't use git (me has me own, very sufficient, ways to > keep track of things). So me just used 'diff -u'. You can get svn working copies and tar.gz or zip exports from https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh/. > >> # Hope this is useful (it is to me), > >> # > >> # --zeurkous, Sun Apr 11 11:12:21 UTC 2021. > >> # > >> --- Doc/Zsh/..v/5.8/exec.yo Mon Dec 4 14:09:35 2017 > >> +++ Doc/Zsh/exec.yo Sun Apr 11 10:42:15 2021 > >> @@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ > >> Otherwise, the shell searches each element of tt($path) for a > >> directory containing an executable file by that name. If the > >> search is unsuccessful, the shell prints an error message and returns > >> -a nonzero exit status. > >> +127. > >> + > >> +If execution fails because of insufficient permissions, or because the > >> +file is a directory, the shell prints an error message and returns 126. > >> > > > > Does this sentence cover every possible case of returning 126? The > > condition in the source is «== EACCES || == ENOEXEC». > > Me wishes me had a guarantee. It probably differs from system to system > (me runs OpenBSD); this is me best shot (for now). Does that mean you won't be submitting a revised patch? No problem if so; just want to make it explicit whether or not revising the patch is a task that's up for grabs. > > Moreover, the > > very next sentence says "the file is not in executable format", and it > > would be odd to refer to the same condition by different noun phrases in > > two consecutive sentences. > > In me defense: the whole text is a bit vague, and me's not sure me > understands the subtleties enough to do a {,partial }rewrite of the > section. > > > I don't like the newly-added paragraph break. Anyone who stops reading > > at the end of that paragraph will think the return code is 127, period. > > Why would someone stop reading there...? People skim. > > Also, stating the return values before going on to say that if the file > > isn't a directory then it's exeuted anyway could be confusing, couldn't it? > > In all honesty: to me, the whole text is so unnecessarily unclear that > me'd apply me usual solution of writing exit statuses in a table: > > If execution fails: one of the following values is returned. > .Pp > .Bl -tag -width 126 -compact > .It Li 126 > [...summarize the condition{,s} that cause{,s} it to return that...] > .It Li 127 > [...idem...] > .El > > (That's in mdoc(7), not in man(7). Sorry.) > > However, if you folks would desire that: me has no idea how to write > that in yodl, so mecan't provide a patch. In this case, a startsitem() would probably work well. There's plenty of examples in our tree. > > Should this part of the manual mention the AUTO_CD option? > > Dunno. It could unnecessarily complicate it. > "Unnecessarily"? Doesn't AUTO_CD logically belong in that part of the manual? > > A few paragraph below the value, 127, is mentioned again. Does that > > sentence need to be updated? > > Me'd say that if the text above would be made sufficiently clear (with > quotes of both diagnostic messages), that paragraph could be > significantly curtailed, instead of extended. That's what I meant. Daniel