From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28661 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2015 17:19:01 -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: 34680 Received: (qmail 15372 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2015 17:18:58 -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=0Vyxv2paBkxDByI1Ai4r0A==:117 a=0Vyxv2paBkxDByI1Ai4r0A==:17 a=VNsaWKQvMhEA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=9nNL59Axoead0mlf_ysA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 Message-id: <54FB32FF.90908@eastlink.ca> Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 09:18:55 -0800 From: Ray Andrews User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Aliasing separators (Re: grammar triviality with '&&') References: <54F33934.2070607@eastlink.ca> <13666281425228233@web7o.yandex.ru> <54F345D3.9010204@eastlink.ca> <20150302022754.GA7449@xvii.vinc17.org> <20150302104619.GC6869@xvii.vinc17.org> <20150302110610.2e2c7e86@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20150304144756.GA27231@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr> <150304175112.ZM19818@torch.brasslantern.com> <20150305100638.55631238@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <150305090720.ZM8441@torch.brasslantern.com> <20150305174011.0be5a31e@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <150305174240.ZM8732@torch.brasslantern.com> <20150306094039.3d968c63@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <150306112628.ZM9769@torch.brasslantern.com> <20150307155252.75848f74@ntlworld.com> In-reply-to: <20150307155252.75848f74@ntlworld.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 03/07/2015 07:52 AM, Peter Stephenson wrote: > If you did make that change, making "&&" a string rather than a token > at the start of the line, then you could alias it willy-nilly. So I > still don't really see it as relevant to the behaviour of tokens. I > suspect I'm not explaining this point properly. pws As for me, I didn't realize I'd be guilty of being a party to the creation of an ouroboros. Can it even be contemplated to make fundamental syntax aliasable? Can I alias a backtick? Can I alias the word alias? Not on this side of sanity. I dunno, maybe what you guys are contemplating makes sense, but it sure looks like the time-traveler's paradox to me. Allowing syntax to change it's own meaning? Is there anywhere in this universe where aliasing '&&' is useful, even if it didn't create paradox? I myself am happy with Bart's last explanation, it's robust, understandable, necessary, fundamental. [ -e file1 ]\ && do-this isn't hard to type. Pandora, meet Kurt Godel, meet Doctor Who. Lawrence, forgive me ;-)