Re: Bug in ${(z)...} lexing, or what?

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven wrote:
> There is still something fishy, though. A string like `ls (#i)foo' is
> broken into `ls' and `(#i)foo', but `[[ (#i)foo ]]' is broken into
> `[[', `(', `#i', `)', ... I haven't found out where and why this
> happens yet.

I can partly answer that.  There's a context dependency in conditions,
because a `(' may introduce the start of a pattern, as here, or it may
introduce the start of a group.  Luckily, the former only happens when we
are expecting an argument to a test (you can't have patterns on the left of
an `=' or `!=', otherwise the issue would have been unresolvable) and the
latter when we are expecting a complete test, so we can check.  In your
example, `(' should indeed be a single token introducing a group, so the
parsing is correct.  I don't know exactly what happens on the right of an
`=', but it's possible that in that case, too, the `(' is lexed before we
decide and the string put together later, but it may also be normal.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070