On 2023-01-28 19:03, Bart Schaefer wrote:
Hmmm ... OK, as you use the word. As I was using it 'accurate' includes complete and unambiguous and helpful. Short of dp, there was no direct way of seeing *all* the attributes. I don't get it Bart, you and Roman provided a very nice function and at the same time you're speaking as if there was nothing for it to do.That's not an answer to the question. Other available information is also accurate, just not (what you consider) complete.
That's for the dev's judgement of course. I have what I want in any case. Dunno, I guess it's just my mentality. I like complete information estheticaly displayed. Matter of principle mostly, but sometimes of practice. As in this case, I'm occasionally thrown off the scent by something misleading or incomplete. I've had two private messages thanking *me* for dp even tho I didn't write it. So I'm not the only guy liking that display. I still think it should be a core competence.If the answer is just because you're curious, that's perfectly fine, but it isn't necessarily a justification for adding something to the C code of the shell.
Incidentally, "typeset -P" is already co-opted by the zsh/param/private module.
I picked '-P' as a for instance -- sorta 'p' on steroids. Come to that, just philosophically speaking, I don't like commands having both active and passive functionality anyway, so it shouldn't be attached to typeset. You don't want to type a command to 'see' something and end up 'doing' something by accident. Imagine if 'rm' had a passive usage: 'rm -V' ... view previous deletions ... and you type 'rm -r' by mistake and ... Nope, I was wrong to use typeset to display information from the getgo.