Re: Surprising parsing result with anonymous functions and for loops

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:52:43 +0100
Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:21:43 +0200
> Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 25 September 2014 13:39, Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:02:55 +0200
> > > Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Okay, but does anyone at least agree that doing alias expansion at
> > >> that point is highly surprising?
> > >
> > > You mean regardless of function behaviour?
> > >
> > > % alias foo=bar
> > > % for i in 1; do : ; done foo
> > > zsh: parse error near `bar'
> 
> I think the change is theoretically correct anyway; we shouldn't be
> looking for commands at those points, we should only be looking for
> arguments, even though only special arguments like redirections are
> handled here, so actually it's moot for most non-error cases.

The only non-error case I can think of that this would effect is if you
add a non-global alias for something like "2>&1", though I can't think
of a good use for this (unlike a global alias).  You now wouldn't be
able to use that in the cases in question.  But I don't think you'd
expect to.

I'll commit this, but in case there are oddities that aren't picked up
by the tests here's a list of the cases that changed for future
reference.  "After" implies parsing for the immediately following
non-whitespace token.

for:
  - after "done"
  - after "}" in the alternative syntax
  - after "end" in the CSH syntax.

if:
  - after "fi" encountered without else ) two different cases
  - after "fi" encountered after else   )     in the code
  - after "}" encountered after else in the alternative syntax

while and repeat:
  - after "done"
  - after "}" in the alternative syntax

pws