Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: sourcing a sh file in zsh
- X-seq: zsh-workers 26506
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: sourcing a sh file in zsh
- Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:20:05 -0800
- In-reply-to: <200902012103.20658.arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <BD9D2405-AD6A-4336-9C8A-85149165B6B8@xxxxxxxxx> <200901311132.28144.arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx> <090131124043.ZM7791@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200902012103.20658.arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>
On Feb 1, 9:03pm, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
}
} So I still tend to leave things as is (making documentation more clear)
} and if we ever need different behaviour, better add explicit option for
} it.
A solution to this might be to create a way to force an option to remain
set even across the end of a LOCAL_OPTIONS scope. E.g., take any option
name and prefix it with "FORCE_" and that puts it in the "surrounding"
scope, ala "typeset -g" for variables. That would solve some problems
for ordinary function scopes as well.
Pick some other/better word than "force". And I'm not sure that being
able to climb up exactly one scope is enough, but it's a start.
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author