Re: Bug#517008: alias not expanded with zsh -c

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 26,  9:50am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Bug#517008: alias not expanded with zsh -c
}
} On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:14:31 -0700
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
} > It just seems to me that we're potentially penalizing a script that
} > does not use aliases in the can't-open-tempfile case in order to
} > support a script that does not use aliases.

In case it wasn't obvious, there's an extra "not" in that last line.

} > Given potential security problems with using tempfiles and the
} > likelyhood of a script using an alias vs. the likelyhood of file
} > creation failing, which case ought we be catering too?

Good grief, I was having a bad typing day yesterday.  Must be because
I was home sick at the time ...
 
} From what I've heard, it doesn't sound like it's worth more than a
} warning.
} 
} +other piece of shell code evaluated as one unit.  Note this may
} +cause differences from other shells even when the option is in
} +effect.  For example, when running a command with `tt(zsh -c)' the
} +entire command argument is parsed in one go, so aliases defined within

Is it obvious enough that "evaluated as one unit" and "parsed in one go"
mean the same thing?  And should that be tt(sh -c) rather than zsh?