Re: [PATCH] Add option like tcsh's dextract

[Tim Eliseo <tre-zsh@crushedhat.com>]

On 2023-08-05 16:48:07, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 9:47 AM Tim Eliseo <tre-zsh@crushedhat.com> wrote:
>> As my sample workaround script illustrates [...]
>> achieving the original tcsh behavior
>> without a builtin option is non-trivial.
> # The chdir/cd builtin, with one argument in [+|-]n form and with
> # the auto_pushd option set, has the desired stack extract behavior,
>
> I believe Mikael's assertion is that the extra nontrivial checks in
> your sample workaround are not needed?  Where are you observing (or
> where is Mikael failing to observe) a difference?
>
What Mikael said was “it seems that the same thing can be accomplished 
with setopt auto_pushd and using cd instead of pushd”. Yes, stack 
extract (as opposed to roll) behavior will happen using cd with a +/- 
argument and with auto_pushd set, a fact I exploit in my workaround 
script, but that does not make cd with auto_pushd set a suitable 
alternative to pushd if one desires stack extract behavior because:

• cd doesn’t print the directory stack afterwards

• cd behaves differently than pushd with no arguments (go to home 
instead of swap the top two)

• With auto_pushd set, there is no longer a command to change directory 
without pushing the current (i.e. replace the top stack directory)

My script works around this and implements a pushd replacement with 
extraction, and also has to deal with the complexity of other conditions 
like command options, pushd_silent, and interactive/non-interactive 
mode. One thing not possible to do correctly is output “pushd” instead 
of “chdir” in error messages.

I wrote this script as a first attempt to implement the behavior I 
desired (which was to duplicate tcsh’s dextract option). I now regret 
even posting it, as it seems to have caused more confusion.

BUT THERE’S A BETTER WAY! The patch in 51958 implements this new option 
(pushd stack extraction instead of rolling) very cleanly, without 
introducing any backward compatibility issues, and includes updates to 
documentation and a test case. I spent significant time trying to get 
this right, and feel it is a valuable (albeit small) addition to the zsh 
codebase which will help some other users making the transition from tcsh.

I have to say that, as a new contributor, I’m not feeling particularly 
welcomed. Do the zsh maintainers have a process for deciding to accept 
contributions? I tried to be polite and patient, and got criticized for 
it. I asked for a second look, and then got asked what *I* didn’t 
understand. What more do I need to do to move this process forward?

Thanks for your consideration.

Tim