On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 12:38:38 PM EDT, Zachary Santer
wrote:
> Another alternative would be for bash to print a warning whenever it
> encounters this syntax.
There are precedents for this kind of behavior in languages like perl which
issue warnings
for deprecated features for several rel
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025, at 12:38 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> There are other weird, undocumented things that you could have the
> same conversation about. ${#@} is equivalent to ${#}
This is documented and not at all weird. $# came from Bourne, and
${#@} is a logical extension of ${#var} that happe
Thanks, Chet!
Yes, you're right that zsh definitely does not encourage use of these
non-standard constructs.
This whole thread got started when I accidentally created a mashup of
shell/perl, similar to:
for (( i=0; i<3; ++i )) { echo $i; }
and was really quite surprised to find that i
On 3/7/25 12:23 PM, John Wiersba wrote:
You're discouraging it's use by not documenting it. BTW, according to
those links below, apparently zsh documents it (and encourages its use)?
I think "encourages" is a very generous reading of "These are
non-standard and are likely not to be obvious ev
On 3/8/25 3:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
But:
$ echo {a..{z,y}}
a..z a..y
Is this documented? I would expect it to produce
{a..z} {a..y}
As fate would have it, I fixed this case about a month ago after a separate
conversation.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - C
