Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: _dispatch (was Re: PATCH: [for consideration] TMPSUFFIX)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 39512
- From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: _dispatch (was Re: PATCH: [for consideration] TMPSUFFIX)
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:03:47 +0000
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= daniel.shahaf.name; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=9DjEb2TpXgP3Hou7 SWOO/N/+3dk=; b=NfQ052GDwu3QxM908zLoQkJNPVPfAqWbqiW6Gc1cjnHu/rnJ c+GVrdjtPDTwoHnAxQDnMEzXcoQu6WtQeeRR7VmRm9j/oSdirKPmf9lagiH8Ia1r QTaeYNycVYZaHJKLNgQv1axbNfcC2uOOfMiBxQFOSxRbhPOY4Qv0E4mGNik=
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=9DjEb2TpXgP3Hou 7SWOO/N/+3dk=; b=YgSu47tONn2SBq1BqZKACg7UxIWAf77tl5bTwFHQelAlwx+ 0tbt2ztVSvcxpoEyqs2uZOCpp7loMKGOhPeBH8pjy98N6O7pqFTHkkTx8mpEAn/3 psvsfDNGKwRQsRS6zi+ur7ra4pv5jvzRgkb34SUOKf1NDfh7i2XiiGUf2p8I=
- In-reply-to: <160929003047.ZM27818@torch.brasslantern.com>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <160925155112.ZM23899@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160926072546.GA28316@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <160926091922.ZM26758@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160927070039.GA20798@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <160927122050.ZM13394@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160928102417.GA2729@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <160928114917.ZM32186@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160929063916.GA4351@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <160929003047.ZM27818@torch.brasslantern.com>
Bart Schaefer wrote on Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 00:30:47 -0700:
> On Sep 29, 6:39am, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> } It might be easier to just give a flag to eval that means "propagate
> } errflag of the evaluated expression to the calling scope"? So the eval
> } itself would be aborted/unrolled, too.
> I don't think this is a significant enough problem to warrant changing
> the definition of "eval" (if by "give a flag" you mean "add a -e option"
> for some variant of -e).
Yes, that's what I meant. In terms if your idea, I think my idea was to
have ERRFLAG_EVAL automatically convert back to ERRFLAG_ERROR iff -e was
passed to eval — i.e., not by default.
> However, if it were possible for the "eval" builtin to know when it
> was inside an "always" construct and propagate a new ERRFLAG_EVAL
> out to where TRY_BLOCK_ERROR could reflect it, that might work.
> The important bit would be that ERRFLAG_EVAL never converts directly
> back into ERRFLAG_ERROR, so if the script ignores TRY_BLOCK_ERROR
> then all errors disappear at the end of the always-block.
> Or something like that.
This makes sense, but wouldn't it also require some way for the always
block to (manually) set ERRFLAG_ERROR again upon an ERRFLAG_EVAL, in
order to "abort enough code" (which was the original issue)?
The interface could be a new builtin, or a setfn on TRY_BLOCK_ERROR; the
important thing is that then the always block finishes ERRFLAG_ERROR
would be set.
Messages sorted by: