Re: set -A and stat -A vs. typeset -A and stat -H

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 28,  5:50pm, Phil Pennock wrote:
} Subject: Re: set -A and stat -A vs. typeset -A and stat -H
}
} Generally, I have no objections whatsoever to changing [stat -H].  I
} was just gratified to see someone modify the examples to make use of my
} addition.  A nice warm fuzzy feeling inside... :^)

Here's an idea ... simply use `stat -A' for both, and have stat examine
the type of the parameter to which it's assigning to choose the behavior.
For that to work cleanly, though, stat would have to refuse to create a
parameter that didn't already exist.

`set -A' could do the same, for that matter, though it's been around a
lot longer so it probably couldn't get away with refusing to create new
parameters.

} Erm, Bart, is that the first time that you've used a smiley on the
} zsh-workers list?  :^)  *ducks*

No, it isn't the first time, but a while back someone I worked with used
smileys so often that they became meaningless/annoying to everyone else,
and consequently I pretty much stopped using them unless my meaning might
be completely misconstrued without one.

} Anyway, back on topic.  Given all this overloading in typeset and set,
} how feasible is it to do a split-out, similar to the completion stuff
} recently?

One can do almost anything with modules, except modify the lexer/parser.

} Ie, carefully examine the functionality requirements, add (I
} suspect) three new builtins, organise the options consistenly for those.

What three are you thinking of?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com