bug: whence -wa / none / argv position

bug: whence -wa / none / argv position

[Phil Pennock]

Invoking `whence -wa` with multiple arguments, where one does not exist,
has different results depending upon whether the non-existing one is
first in the list or not.

% PS1='%?%# '
0% whence -wa ls foo echo
ls: command
echo: builtin
echo: command
0% whence -wa foo ls echo
foo: none
ls: command
echo: builtin
echo: command
1% whence -wa ls echo foo
ls: command
echo: builtin
echo: command
0%

If I use `whence -a` then it _always_ ignores the non-existent foo.

If I use `whence -w` then it _always_ reports `foo: none` and exits 1.

It's when I use `whence -wa` that this only shows the "none" item (and
exits non-zero) when the item is first.

Built zsh at head (no local patches) to confirm this is still current:

    typeset ZSH_VERSION=5.9.0.1-dev
    typeset ZSH_PATCHLEVEL=pdp/master/zsh-5.9-209-g88eeade0b

-Phil

Re: bug: whence -wa / none / argv position

[Bart Schaefer]

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:25 PM Phil Pennock
<zsh-workers+phil.pennock@spodhuis.org> wrote:
>
> Invoking `whence -wa` with multiple arguments, where one does not exist,
> has different results depending upon whether the non-existing one is
> first in the list or not.

Is it really this easy?

diff --git a/Src/builtin.c b/Src/builtin.c
index e4f356803..669a47092 100644
--- a/Src/builtin.c
+++ b/Src/builtin.c
@@ -4046,6 +4046,7 @@ bin_whence(char *nam, char **argv, Options ops, int func)
     /* Take arguments literally -- do not glob */
     queue_signals();
     for (; *argv; argv++) {
+    informed = 0;
     if (!OPT_ISSET(ops,'p') && !allmatched) {
         char *suf;

Re: bug: whence -wa / none / argv position

[Phil Pennock]

On 2023-06-23 at 18:55 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:25 PM Phil Pennock
> <zsh-workers+phil.pennock@spodhuis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Invoking `whence -wa` with multiple arguments, where one does not exist,
> > has different results depending upon whether the non-existing one is
> > first in the list or not.
> 
> Is it really this easy?

Yes, it appears so.  Works for me.

Thanks,
-Phil