Re: path PATH

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2023-01-22 17:11, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> That's actually exactly my point: It is not true that you had to
> resort to "typeset" to get this information.  Everything you wanted
> except the output formatting is available given the parameter name
> itself, you don't even need the zsh/parameter module.
Whatever.  However.  I'm just happy to have something that works.  
Obviously the building blocks were there, I just didn't know how to find 
them.  Everything *seemed* to suggest that typeset -p was where you went 
for that kind of information.  I'm glad to learn otherwise.  Seems I was 
driving nails with a crosscut saw.  Now I have a hammer.  It's that 
simple and thanks again.  If I'd had DP ab ovo, this thread, and a few 
others like it, would never have been started cuz things would have been 
clear from the getgo.

> However, there are plenty of scripts in Functions/Misc that fit this

I don't understand Lawrence's perspective on this.  Can one have too many tools?  I suppose something could be so marginal that it's not worth it's weight but is DP really like that?  I doubt I'm the only person who finds that kind of information useful.  Lawrence spins it as some sort of fetish to want to see the type of a param and it's value at the same time.  I don't see this as anything like a contest.  The devs will make the right decision.  But from the peanut gallery I myself will always vote for what's simple, informative, and clear.  Those who like things that are convoluted, confusing, incomplete and obscure can have those things too.