On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 11:54:08AM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Let me begin by saying I'm not familiar enough with the parser to have
> an opinion on whether it would be better to have change the docs to
> match the code, or change the code to match the docs, or leave this as
> an implementation detail that's subject to change.
Agreed, that's probably a good idea.
> All that said, I'm not too bothered by the grammar of the log message
> (which is now explained in this thread anyway). I'd sooner suggest
> changes to the new text:
>
> > +++ b/Doc/Zsh/grammar.yo
> > @@ -185,11 +185,12 @@ cindex(loops, for)
> > item(tt(for) var(name) ... [ tt(in) var(word) ... ] var(term) tt(do) var(list) tt(done))(
> > where var(term) is at least one newline or tt(;).
> > Expand the list of var(word)s, and set the parameter
> > var(name) to each of them in turn, executing
> > var(list) each time. If the tt(in) var(word) is omitted,
> > -use the positional parameters instead of the var(word)s.
> > +use the positional parameters with a var(term) implicitly
> > +appended instead of the var(word)s.
> >
>
> Two issues here:
>
> 1. The docs of var(term) are spread across the first and last sentence.
Yes, that is a bit awkward. I should find a better way to organize that.
> 2. Adding a side remark about var(term) to the last sentence may obscure
> that sentence's primary point about the fallback to positional
> parameters.
>
> So, perhaps something like this (relative to master):
>
> -where var(term) is at least one newline or tt(;).
> Expand the list of var(word)s, and set the parameter
> var(name) to each of them in turn, executing
> -var(list) each time. If the tt(in) var(word) is omitted,
> +var(list) each time. If the `tt(in) var(word)' is omitted,
> use the positional parameters instead of the var(word)s.
> +
> +var(term) should be one or more newline or tt(;), and is optional if
> +the `tt(in) var(word)' is omitted.
Aha, optional works great here.
> But let's wait for someone familiar with the parser to opine on the
> proposed strategic direction ("document the parser's behaviour") before
> we spend too much time on implementing that.
But again agreed, I'll wait for someone who knows the parser well (Bart
maybe?) to chime in before I cook up a v2.
--
Cheers,
Joey Pabalinas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature