Re: "setopt noexec" and interactive shells

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 27,  8:25pm, Zefram wrote:
} Subject: Re: "setopt noexec" and interactive shells
}
} *grumble*.  What's anyone ever going to use noexec for other than syntax
} checking?

Well, yes, exactly.  Isn't it possible that you'd like to check the syntax
of a function you have defined in an interactive shell?

} I'd prefer that we give the option a consistent behaviour.

The consistent behavior I was thinking of is that commands entered at a
shell prompt (e.g. through ZLE) are never affected by `noexec' whereas
all other commands are.  How is that any less consistent than, say, the
SHINSTDIN behavior we were just discussing?

} For the record, pdksh makes no such distinction between commands in a
} function and commands at the top level

Right, but ksh doesn't have `localoptions'.

I don't mean to be making too big a deal of this, but I want to be sure we
can explain/defend whatever implementation eventually results.

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

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net