From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id CAA24529 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 1996 02:10:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA03007; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:58:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <960621085558.ZM4927@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:55:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: Zefram "Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary)" (Jun 21, 9:06am) References: <9856.199606210806@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> <199606211215.OAA01436@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> <199606211252.OAA01609@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> In-Reply-To: Zoltan Hidvegi "Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary)" (Jun 21, 2:15pm) In-Reply-To: Zoltan Hidvegi "Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary)" (Jun 21, 2:52pm) Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.607 07jun96) To: Zefram , Zoltan Hidvegi , clive@epos.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary) Cc: mdb@cdc.noaa.gov, zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu (Z Shell workers mailing list) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"2Q0Sz1.0.sk.RQion"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1414 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Jun 21, 9:06am, Zefram wrote: } Subject: Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary) } } > What the heck happened to NO_NOMATCH when the change } >was made to make the prefix "no" into a magic equivalent of "unsetopt"? } } That patch isn't in the baseline yet. It made the canonical form of } that option NOMATCH, so that "setopt NOMATCH", "unsetopt NOMATCH", } "setopt NO_NOMATCH" and "unsetopt NO_NOMATCH" are valid. So you check for canonical forms before stripping off the leading "no", and then check again after stripping it to invert the sense? Or what? On Jun 21, 2:15pm, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote: } Subject: Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary) } } > Aside: Question about NO_RCS: } > Commands are first read from `/etc/zshenv'. If the -f flag is } > given or if the NO_RCS option is set within `/etc/zshenv', all } > other initialization files are skipped. } > Why doesn't NO_RCS in any init file stop reading of any files that would } > normally follow the one where it is set? Or does it, and the doc just } > doesn't explicitly say so? } } No, the documentation is correct. So then, answer the "Why?" part of the question. } > Precommand modifiers, `exec', should explain that the "parent" zsh is } > replaced by the exec'd command, as if zsh had exited and the command } > was run in its place. } } Also these are builins now, which is not yet documented. Exactly what difference does that make? (Which is part of what ought to be documented ...) } > Aside: Given the above behavior of `disable -r', it'd be nice to be able } > to get at the internal tokens for the disabled reserved words. E.g.: } > foo() { if true ; then echo This function keeps working ; fi } } > alias endif=fi } > disable -r fi } > bar() { if true ; then echo I wish this still worked ; endif } } > Maybe an option to the alias builtin? } } Aliases realy modify the input to the lexer. Yes, I know. I was suggesting, for lack of a better idea, that there be a magic form of lexer input that could force a reference to a disabled reserved word. Anybody have a better idea? It's obviously possible, because functions that were tokenized before the disable still work. } I do not think that such a feature is necessary. Whatever; it was just a suggestion. } > There's something odd here: } > Arithmetic Expansion } > } > A string of the form $[exp] is substituted with the value of } > the arithmetic expression exp. exp is subjected to parameter } > expansion, command substitution and arithmetic expansion before } > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ } > it is evaluated. See section Arithmetic Evaluation. } > Is this wrong, or is it just a goofy way of saying that $[exp] can be } > nested? (Which doesn't seem to be true, so that's not it.) } } It should be possible to nest arithmentic exansions. Unfortunately } $[$[...]] does not work, that's a bug, I'll fix it. But $[$((...))] works. Shouldn't $((...)) be mentioned in the Arithmetic Expansion discussion? Or is it different in some subtle way? } > Why isn't ***/ mentioned anywhere? That's like **/ except it follows } > symlinks, correct? } } It is documented in the manual. I know, but it isn't mentioned in the Filename Generation discussion of the .texi, and I think it should be. On Jun 21, 2:52pm, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote: } Subject: Re: zsh.texi commentary (actually, HTML pages commentary) } } But these changes should also be made in the manual. Any voulnteers to } clean up the manual? The texinfo and the nroff documentation should be } updated paralelly. The manual also needs spell checking. I'm quite busy } and I think I'm not the best in correcting sylistic problems in English. I couldn't promise to have time, unfortunately. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern New male in /home/schaefer: >N 2 Justin William Schaefer Sat May 11 03:43 53/4040 "Happy Birthday"