Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: Defining function based on alias

X-seq: zsh-workers 40317
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Defining function based on alias
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:33:40 +0000
Cms-type: 201P
In-reply-to: <20170109040258.GA8019@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
List-help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre
References: <20170107221659.1b9232da@ntlworld.com> <20170108191922.3d3de59f@ntlworld.com> <170108160921.ZM11340@torch.brasslantern.com> <CGME20170109041737epcas3p4d836e3c3b0f212f8c2d030c88daca3ba@epcas3p4.samsung.com> <20170109040258.GA8019@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 04:02:58 +0000
Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Should these two behave differently when the new option is set?  The
> first case appeared to be a non-anonymous function definition and the
> second a multifuncdef, but the alias changed the semantics.

I wasn't proposing to try to protect everyone from every possible error,
just the case we know is quite common even in normal use of functions
and aliases.

Conversely, if you need to do clever tricks I'm assuming you will simply
sign on the dotted line to say you will take responsibility and set the
option.

I do need to add something to the README.

pws

References:
- Defining function based on alias
  - From: Peter Stephenson
- Re: Defining function based on alias
  - From: Peter Stephenson
- Re: Defining function based on alias
  - From: Bart Schaefer
- Re: Defining function based on alias
  - From: Daniel Shahaf

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author