Re: path PATH

[Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023, at 6:58 PM, Ray Andrews wrote:
> On 2023-01-22 15:35, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>>
>> It was not written to "fix" typeset -p; it was written to satisfy
>> your idiosyncratic preferences.
> Neither Bart nor Roman would indulge me if there was no merit at all to 
> what I want.

They are performing a kindness by giving you a tool that suits your
personal tastes.  Their generosity does not carry any broader
implications about how the shell should or should not behave.


> But in this case I'm right

Proclaiming your righteousness ad nauseam is not persuasive, and
you should stop doing it.


> what's idiosyncratic 
> about wanting full information about a parameter along with it's value?  
> What's ever wrong with complete information?

The shell already provides multiple methods of obtaining all this
information.  The fact that you don't like any of them does not
mean that it needs to sprout a new one.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that.  One of the purposes of a
shell is to empower users to construct their own tools.  This is
as it should be.


>> This should absolutely not be done. 
>
> Why not?  Honest question.  DP can of course remain as a stand-alone 
> function, but what would harm if it were bolted in to typeset?

Adding functionality always imposes a variety of costs, and typeset
is already overly complex.  The functionality you want to add is
just a repackaged version of existing functionality, so it does not
justify those costs.


> I'm just wondering why other's shouldn't have it too.

The zsh distribution is not the place to publish scripts written
to scratch your itches.


-- 
vq