Re: PATCH: configurability of pattern characters, part 1

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Peter Stephenson
<p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 00:16:27 -0700
> Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > % setopt kshglob
> > % disable -p '+('
> > % setopt kshglob
> >
> > Does the setopt re-enable '+(' or does it remain disabled?
>
> It remains disabled: that's a separate set of controls.


OK, so one way to think about this is that "disable" controls whether the
syntax is available, and setopt controls whether the syntax is used.
 Earlier, though, you said:

> If you want to be able to enable or disable every pattern separetely, you
> "setopt extendedglob kshglob noshglob" first.

Is the word "first" significant there?  E.g., does that mean that if I do

% unsetopt kshglob
% disable -p '+('
% setopt kshglob

that '+(' will be enabled?  (I know, I could apply the patch and try it,
but I'm interested in the intentions behind it.)