Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Over-reaction (was Re: trapped in bash)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 40214
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Over-reaction (was Re: trapped in bash)
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:14:35 -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=logomnGm2/Va7xXc4vABdcxpFzG/aRf9J+VKYcO0+8E=; b=YGTSw0h/Q3D1cvKU56yaUZQatHlGarLJAFAJB4hIASpG/QU46MGmIUVI2zfzZzi/8/ 4G/gsrS+ZYx+9Gl0CS7GiE6Nl40VpMPVOoGdFHDLdQ+WojW8NXxDDUWnkk3iQ1q5XmgF yWI2XeXvrU0vq4p1r+YZhlcqEeBQwxS3ZoTr+iRH9aD/PhAVgWQ0REpabpiYMAB4fNnp YYS/paeCl079wls+szxaoL5U0pqcTMprfepnrAgV97y2h5Ixq99VZ52mOgiqlkQE+QBL Dr1bH7OvqRbQlW7SYCRR1Jqq13BNxmNMDHnL+KbhwpxOxz4hb6PHnMCUvSmOMqmvAZCC Zvlg==
- In-reply-to: <20161219174746.GA27982@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <58559FC0.email@example.com> <161217124354.ZM7815@torch.brasslantern.com> <5855BEF2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20161218150628.GB9158@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <5856B133.email@example.com> <20161219003219.GA21509@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <161218183056.ZM5304@torch.brasslantern.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <161218214811.ZM5814@torch.brasslantern.com> <email@example.com> <20161219174746.GA27982@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
On Dec 19, 5:47pm, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
} Yes, error messages should generally be signed.
I don't like this, for several reasons:
1. It's confusing extra information that is completely irrelevant to
most users most of the time. The circumstances in which this
error comes up are ridiculously rare.
2. Arguably it's not even useful extra information; anybody who would
not be confused by the term "execve" already knows that's where
the error must be coming from.
3. No other shell exposes this detail. That's not in itself a
reason for zsh not to, but see #1 for context.
4. There are other ways (previously posted command_not_found_handler
for example) to convey the equivalent information.
5. IMO Ray is deep into "if you break it, you get to keep the pieces"
territory with his whole attempt to wholesale copy binaries from
one architecture to another, and we should not take this as an
example of situation we ought to be special-casing.
6. It's a bad precedent to distract ourselves with stuff like #5 that
doesn't even rise to the level of a FREQUENTLY asked question.
Messages sorted by: