From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 845 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2014 22:56:25 -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: 34025 Received: (qmail 12576 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2014 22:56:22 -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-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=T/C1EZ6Q c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=nXUbkqBeGw4q4gDV/Ctilg==:117 a=nXUbkqBeGw4q4gDV/Ctilg==:17 a=G8GL833Es-AA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=cm-KzUX6gPUqQQZuJ8sA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 Message-id: <5495FE92.4010203@eastlink.ca> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:56:18 -0800 From: Ray Andrews User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Variant syntax (Re: Could someone clarify how math functions work?) References: <54939F50.50102@gmx.com> <20141219093551.5a89e4d9@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <141220113708.ZM31285@torch.brasslantern.com> <5495DDA4.4000604@eastlink.ca> <141220140920.ZM31351@torch.brasslantern.com> In-reply-to: <141220140920.ZM31351@torch.brasslantern.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit 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.