Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: Docs fix
- X-seq: zsh-workers 4457
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: TGAPE! <tgape@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Docs fix
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:21:23 -0800
- Cc: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <199810262202.WAA06805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <199810262202.WAA06805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Oct 26, 10:02pm, TGAPE! wrote:
> Subject: Re: Docs fix
> >> Not exactly. "$@" keeps empty arguments and independent of option and
> >> IFS settings, neither of which is true for $*.
> > Yes, but as I was just explaining privately to Phil, the context of his
> > change is "what zsh construct is most like using \!* in csh aliases?"
> > The best answer is $*, because you have to use \!*:q to get "$@" behavior
> > in csh. An argument could be made that $==* is even better, but not "$@".
> Who cares if it is the behavior that is most equivalent, when the
> behavior is not what they want?!?
The context here is the question about converting csh aliases to zsh.
Csh aliases DO HAVE the equivalent of the "$@" construct. It's \!*:q.
If one has a CORRECTLY WORKING ALIAS that uses \!* without the :q, then
using "$@" in the replacement zsh function will *NOT* do what one wants,
in at least some circumstances.
In ANY OTHER CONTEXT, *especially* in shells scripts, everything that is
being said about "$@" being better is *absolutely* correct. But it is
NOT correct in the FAQ question where Phil's patch changes it!
> But, to quote Zoltan,
> > It's good habbit to use "$@". The use of $* is almost always wrong
> > in bourne/korn shell scripts still people use that all the time.
A zsh function intended to replace a csh alias is not a bourne/korn script.
Otherwise I completely agree.
> Showing people how to mimic the broken behavior of their old shells is
> not necessarily a good way to win converts or friends. However, I do
> think the FAQ should be modified to mention that no, this isn't the the
> exact same behavior, this is better.
Sigh. Look. The FAQ cannot possibly explain all circumstances in which
"$@" is correct. When it's correct, it's better; when it's wrong, it's
> Btw, can you show even *one* case where a csh user really wants $*
> functionality and not "$@"?
Sure. Warning, csh syntax follows.
alias do "\!* >&! did &"
alias dopr '\!* | lpr -J "\!:1"'
If you replace $* with "$@" when converting those aliases, you end up
quoting the word in the command position, which causes unexptected side
> And, even if $* by default acted exactly
> like "$@", it's a good idea to script so as to be complient with as many
> shells as is reasonable.
This is all wonderful advice, but completely out of context for the place
that Phil's patch made the change.
Messages sorted by: