Re: Next release (5.3)

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 13,  9:41am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
}
} i agree with Daniel regarding limited utility of :a, and i already
} (mis)use :A as if it was doing 2.

Cf.  PWS's example script RE utility of :a / current :A.
 
} > The emerging consensus seems to be for:
} > 
} >     1. :a is as before
} >     2. :A is as before
} >     3. new modifier calls realpath and does (1) if no realpath
} 
} re "does (1) if no realpath": really (1), not (2)?

Well, if no realpath, then (1) and (2) are the same, so ...

} in order of decreasing preference:
} 
} 1 change the meaning of :A so that it is equivalent to realpath(3)
}   where it exists and to :a on systems without realpath(3)
} 2 new modifier that calls realpath(3) with fallback to :A
} 3 new modifier that calls realpath(3) with fallback to :a

... there's no useful distinction between your #2 and #3.

} if i could have a pony then the most favorable solution would be
} 
} 0 change the meaning of :A so that it is always equivalent to
}   realpath(3), using an implementation bundled with Zsh where
}   necessary

Noted.  Somewhat more likely would be a new modifier that implements
realpath by stealing code from somewhere that is licensing-compatible.