Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: zsh-3.0-pre4 released
- X-seq: zsh-workers 1795
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Zefram <A.Main@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: zsh-3.0-pre4 released
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 13:38:34 -0700
- Cc: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Zefram <A.Main@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Re: zsh-3.0-pre4 released" (Jul 27, 9:02pm)
- References: <841.199607272002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: schaefer@xxxxxxx
On Jul 27, 9:02pm, Zefram wrote:
} Subject: Re: zsh-3.0-pre4 released
} I've been using the `new options' (slightly) longer than anyone else
} (how's that for brag value :-)), and while I agree that it is initially
} a little disconcerting, I find that I prefer the cleaner setopt output.
Cleaner? Like I said, the baseline behavior should be what happens when
all the options are unset. The cleanest output is none at all.
} I also find that the testing of options is a little clearer in
} general, in the code. (The option patch actually normalised all option
} tests to either isset(FOO) or unset(FOO).)
} I do prefer unset(UNSET) to isset(NOUNSET).
There's nothing that requires us to use NOUNSET in the code. You yourself
used EXECOPT instead of EXEC, for example (and for obvious reasons).
} > Why shouldn't "nohup"
} >parallel the command prefix of the same name?
} It does.
"setopt nohup" parallels it, but the output of "setopt" doesn't say "nohup".
} >At least with the NO_ prefix, you could tell that there is some expected
} >behavior that is being modified.
} True, that's how the options used to work, but what is the "expected
} behaviour"? It varies depending on whether we're emulating sh, ksh,
} csh, zsh, (when we get round to it) POSIX, or whatever.
The "expected behavior" is what you get when you run "./zsh" out of
the build directory on a machine that's never had zsh near it before.
Emulations are just that; they're by definition not baseline behavior
(unless what you're writing is nothing more than an emulator).
] Not to mention
} that not even all the non-special options defaulted to off anyway
The only ones that didn't are FUNCTION_ARGZERO, which is new; BG_NICE,
which has always annoyed me anyway (and which originally didn't default
that way, if I recall correctly); and the three HASH options, which
don't change any user-visible behavior, only performance tradeoffs.
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
New male in /home/schaefer:
>N 2 Justin William Schaefer Sat May 11 03:43 53/4040 "Happy Birthday"
Messages sorted by: