Re: Variant syntax (Re: Could someone clarify how math functions work?)

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 12/20/2014 02:09 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:

Bart, you and I are both examples of our type.  I can rightly be accused 
of not being ready for big girl's panties yet, OTHO when one has spent 
ca. 30 years getting familiar with things, everything looks easy.  It is 
my lack of experience that is precisely my advantage, because, not being 
familiar, I can point out things that really are strange.  One day I'll 
be used to them and not notice anymore but that will not be a good thing.
> The original intentions were:
>
> 1. A person familiar with csh but unfamiliar with Bourne shell can
>     begin using zsh and feel at home.

Very considerate, I just wonder how relevant that is in real world now.  
I dunno, maybe very relevant, but I suspect that zsh is now fully 
independent and can do the best thing regardless of historical 
considerations.  Or not, I'm just ranting.
> 2. An experienced user can write very brief but powerful expressions
>     when interacting at the command line.  Reduces typing time/effort.
>   
Indeed, some of that stuff is unbelievably powerful.
>
> } Supposing that the goal was to rid the shell of pointless obscurities
>
> "Pointless" is entirely subjective.

Not entirely.  I think we'd all very much agree on a definition of 
'pointless'.  Something that is confusing and that adds no real 
functionality is pointless. Obsolete syntax is pointless. Unused 
compatibility stuff is pointless.

> That was tried with zsh 2.5, which eventually was put out of its misery
> (2.6 was based on the 2.4 code, with the retention of a few odd bits like
> options with the word "JUNKIE" in the name and BARE_GLOB_QUAL).  Anyway,
> if you want that, there are a whole lot of other shells floating around
> ("rc" being just one example) that started from scratch with that goal.
>
Interesting that my thinking is not without precedent.  Anyway, no point 
in flogging dead horses.