Re: setopt interactivecomments

[shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/17/2014 12:37 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>

>>
>> What did eventually happen after the mess was cleaned up is that the
>> zsh-newuser-install system got created.  It could use an update, but
>> is intended to walk you through enabling the stuff that you're most
>> likely to want.
>
> Sounds exactly right. I seem to have missed it.
>

I think that's reasonable - it's been a while since I've generated a new config.

>>
>> [*] I use the term "we" loosely because I personally quit working on zsh
>> for a couple of years until sanity had been restored.
>
> Well, sanity matters. I take a rather conservative view  on most things
> myself, but at the
> same time, I think a few things are now so bedrock standard that we can
> safely part with
> the traditions of 20 years ago on some issues. What, really, would break if
> the backspace
> was enabled by default? What would break if interactive comments was on by
> default? Who
> would complain? Does anyone on Earth really not want command recall?
>

I kinda like nothing being enabled except in config - package sane
configs to be /etc/zsh/* (or /usr/local/etc/zsh/ on BSD I suppose) and
the new-user script sounds like the right way. This is only the second
time something has seemed weird (or from what I wouldn't expect) in
zsh (the other being how arrays are expanded - as arrays are broken or
near enough to broken in bash, I have no complaints about any
improvements zsh makes with them).

As for this (and other 'features') I suppose I'd expect package
maintainers in Linux to make it as close to what you'd get in bash as
possible and the core package to come with configs to get as close to
what sh does by default.