Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
- X-seq: zsh-workers 40151
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: zsh-5.2-test-3
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 00:58:40 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brasslantern-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments:references:to:subject :mime-version; bh=8lXbt2xNpmJ8NcTQFxsIgDFh/HGFh0DiVbMIM3NxyjY=; b=rlhT8SH95Kzu0ERpeogOnHZ1xg1Am669WmGqk29y6C6h6XqU1ZI3dpWddPRJRPDfGb wD/3DxKaa1i1QHV5ZwY2BnxdebB9GJvGjwTfRK5oJN/5fLbrNVnbArY/hDJFF8qXEyOu KWGDTUnzQ1Mkzh26pNT8ggDIWAN99qb5IyUjOg+fvti8Y0p/2ZPucdgV7l/N/oBSSpaP 0RahUEvJVD3KATN/SA9aw86C3HYroNGQGSTUnEjmMSfP+cGYkCu+5t+DMbMsTjqYEIvb sfsfC/f/TqCFMb02GsFxj0jcmi8iWyZJlwOfgGx8XAmmWX4AtzhOfwTbvc180nYyHY5C ht7A==
- In-reply-to: <20161211041119.GA32167@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
- 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: <CGME20161206195028epcas2p3c53119ab37952571be3238cdf228d88f@epcas2p3.samsung.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <584CB4EF.email@example.com> <161210190737.ZM11109@torch.brasslantern.com> <584CC779.firstname.lastname@example.org> <161210194421.ZM26380@torch.brasslantern.com> <20161211041119.GA32167@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
On Dec 11, 4:11am, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
} Subject: Re: zsh-5.2-test-3
} Bart Schaefer wrote on Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 19:44:21 -0800:
} > Actually -- why is that test in B02 in the first place, rather than in
} > say D04parameter.ztst ?
} Because it's about assignment, as opposed to substitution?
Then why isn't in it A06assign ? (Because it's not really about
assignment, either -- it's about a special-parameter side-effect.)
} If there's a better home for the test I don't mind moving it.
It probably ought to be in A05execution, or maybe we need a new test
file just for behavior of assorted special parameters. C06specials ?
Incidentally, assigning to USERNAME attempts to change both UID and
GID and is still only a warning, not an error. Further, if setuid()
and setgid() aren't available, assignments to UID et al. silently
do nothing, which is probably why failure of set?id() when available
was never a hard error before.
Passing thought, mostly unrelated: There should be tests of "getopts"
in B08shift. I believe we still have some incompatibility with POSIX
in OPTIND/OPTARG handling it would be nice to have an example of the
current behavior with some mention of the difference in case we get
around to fixing it.
Messages sorted by: