From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-33838-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 8170 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2014 22:55:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 33838
Received: (qmail 1678 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2014 22:55:29 -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-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=2F+Duk8D6u3GeAcMDSAwKgvd+YjlelfGdDaTqa7nAyA=;
        b=c2yZ57lrXBHyNDknsEUDHeRN0eSk2MwYQ9dl+TtqqU3eVqdLaM1U+umbQwgKKW4rbk
         AU1rOKeNm4TrGbLTf0pH31i4aCCjQhOXkdweatJMmW4Rl440Skk3fpSNg6BE23hpCZ86
         SMif8oHMClRrK87cN6kcubmwRwTvdA+aHULIhJcY1fkzO6SyrpcRaolP+1ILVK9d7fTZ
         HfFuCbYRFqPGfGAvpW5ud0cDbao4xpsfq76S11IOTsC/+kpVPP0EhySW03w+LZdIdsTs
         RzHigJHw1yOV+eBHHieFY8s1ruYOOKkk1m1y3VsnVq1G7CPQIdJ8jemPAX+KJsywa90r
         972A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlczsVhRCrS1eB+wPUVMntwPuyhpKhusCA97Q4+5OEDEUvgh4zcoEqVIoDYA33nelo1j0L+
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.91.36 with SMTP id cb4mr93991318wib.30.1417647327676;
 Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:55:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141203222002.48d9e22b@mlap.lactee>
References: <20141203222002.48d9e22b@mlap.lactee>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:55:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAH+w=7brHx8FYjw5iiTuwq7sKPzAMXR1VcDfpkgnn+u+dC3JOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Unexpected ${%F{}} evaluation
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Marc Finet <m.dreadlock@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>     # x="${(%):-%F{red}}XX"; echo $x
>     }XX
>     # x=${(%):-%F{red}}XX; echo $x
>     XX
>
> My questions are the following:
>  - is this behavior intended, i.e. break an expression inside ${} to
>    the first } ?

Yes, I believe so.  Inside double quotes, the second open brace has no
special meaning, so the first close brace that is encountered closes
the parameter expansion.

>    At first, I thought that it was a limitation (of ""), but
>    testing the second case showed me that correct parsing could be done.

I think the second case is parsed "correctly" only by accident.  In
the second case the braces are initially parsed as a brace expansion,
but as a special case a brace expansion with only one element is
replaced by the literal string including the braces.  If you "unsetopt
braceexpand" you get the first result for both examples.

It could be argued that this is a bug in braceexpand.

>  - is it normal that %F{xx works as %F{xx} ?

In prompts a percent-expando can end at either the closing brace or
the end of the string, whichever comes first ... because it doesn't
seem useful to have the prompt report a syntax error.  %F{xx would not
work that way if there were more prompt string following it.