From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14403 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2001 10:21:41 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Jun 2001 10:21:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 7708 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2001 10:21:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14990 Received: (qmail 7692 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2001 10:21:02 -0000 Sender: kiddleo Message-ID: <3B30792A.CAD13474@u.genie.co.uk> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:21:30 +0100 From: Oliver Kiddle X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zsh hackers list Subject: Re: PATCH: 4.1.0: `builtin' with disabled builtin. References: <20010615230613.D5F131428B@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk> <1010616043509.ZM4480@candle.brasslantern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bart Schaefer wrote: > > On Jun 16, 12:06am, Peter Stephenson wrote: > } > } It used to be possible to get round the fact that a builtin was disabled by > } putting `builtin' in front of it > } I think the old behaviour is useful and harmless. > > Unless one is trying to use disable to create a restricted shell. Then > one has to disable builtin as well, which might not be desirable for Would it maybe make sense to allow this behaviour except when the restricted option is set? Basically, I agree with Peter that the `old behaviour is useful and harmless' except in a restricted shell. > I don't feel strongly one way or the other; Neither do I really. Oliver