Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 1500
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Zoltan Hidvegi <hzoli@xxxxxxxxxx>, schaefer@xxxxxxx, Anthony Heading <aheading@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:03:20 -0700
- Cc: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Zoltan Hidvegi <hzoli@xxxxxxxxxx> "Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)" (Jul 1, 11:02pm)
- In-reply-to: Anthony Heading <aheading@xxxxxxxxxxxx> "Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)" (Jul 1, 10:35pm)
- References: <199607012102.XAA09412@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <199607012135.WAA08217@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: schaefer@xxxxxxx
On Jul 1, 11:02pm, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote:
} Subject: Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)
}
} Below is the documentation. I do not know much about nroff so if something
} is wrong in it, tell me.
Looks OK to me.
On Jul 1, 10:35pm, Anthony Heading wrote:
} Subject: Re: cshjunkieparen bothers me (and always has)
}
} > ! Many of zsh's complex commands have alternate forms. These particular
} > versions of complex commands should be considered deprecated and may be
} > removed in the future. The versions in the previous section should be
} > preferred instead.
}
} If this syntax is being developed, it seems weird that it's deprecated.
The syntax isn't really being developed (except for my cshjunkietests
suggestion, which I put forth because I used to be a csh junkie). What
has happened is that a special case to *reject* an otherwise reasonable
syntax has been *removed*; this is deconstruction, not construction.
} Does anyone really want to get rid of it?
Just before 2.5.0 was released, there was a big push among some of the zsh
maintainers to remove csh-like features from zsh in favor of faithfully
emulating ksh. That faction no longer seems so vocal, probably because
zsh is now a more complete superset of ksh, so the fact that some extra
non-ksh syntax is available is less noticeable.
} If so, fine. But if the sentiment is that these forms should be
} available without setting options
That isn't quite an accurate depiction. These forms work for the same
reason that this kind of thing works:
if true ; ; ; then
echo bash or ksh would give a syntax error on ';'
fi
Zsh permits things like empty commands in a "list" syntax element and
other unambiguous combinations because it makes for a simpler parser.
It's actually more work in most cases to reject it than to accept it.
} shouldn't they:
} a) be supported;
} b) not be advised against in the manual?
I'd be all in favor of that.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern
New male in /home/schaefer:
>N 2 Justin William Schaefer Sat May 11 03:43 53/4040 "Happy Birthday"
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author