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 LAA14585 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:24:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA18600; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:02:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <960701180325.ZM1725@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:03:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: Zoltan Hidvegi "Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)" (Jul 1, 11:02pm) References: <199607012102.XAA09412@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> <199607012135.WAA08217@gmp-etpres1.uk.jpmorgan.com> In-Reply-To: Anthony Heading "Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)" (Jul 1, 10:35pm) Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.607 07jun96) To: Zoltan Hidvegi , schaefer@nbn.com, Anthony Heading Subject: Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has) Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"elGeR2.0.YY4.cK7sn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1500 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Jul 1, 11:02pm, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote: } Subject: Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has) } } Below is the documentation. I do not know much about nroff so if something } is wrong in it, tell me. Looks OK to me. On Jul 1, 10:35pm, Anthony Heading wrote: } Subject: Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has) } } > ! Many of zsh's complex commands have alternate forms. These particular } > versions of complex commands should be considered deprecated and may be } > removed in the future. The versions in the previous section should be } > preferred instead. } } If this syntax is being developed, it seems weird that it's deprecated. The syntax isn't really being developed (except for my cshjunkietests suggestion, which I put forth because I used to be a csh junkie). What has happened is that a special case to *reject* an otherwise reasonable syntax has been *removed*; this is deconstruction, not construction. } Does anyone really want to get rid of it? Just before 2.5.0 was released, there was a big push among some of the zsh maintainers to remove csh-like features from zsh in favor of faithfully emulating ksh. That faction no longer seems so vocal, probably because zsh is now a more complete superset of ksh, so the fact that some extra non-ksh syntax is available is less noticeable. } If so, fine. But if the sentiment is that these forms should be } available without setting options That isn't quite an accurate depiction. These forms work for the same reason that this kind of thing works: if true ; ; ; then echo bash or ksh would give a syntax error on ';' fi Zsh permits things like empty commands in a "list" syntax element and other unambiguous combinations because it makes for a simpler parser. It's actually more work in most cases to reject it than to accept it. } shouldn't they: } a) be supported; } b) not be advised against in the manual? I'd be all in favor of that. -- 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"