Re: grammar triviality with '&&'

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 2, 2015 3:17 AM, "Peter Stephenson" <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> % andfn() {
>    integer stat=$?
>    (( $stat > 0 )) && return $stat
>    return 0
> }
> % alias and='andfn &&'

% alias and='(){ return $? } && '

(Trailing space thrown in to expand aliases again in the next word.)

Heck, for most purposes you don't even need $? preserved:

% alias and='(( $? )) || '

Heck #2, let's just invent some new operators:

alias -g @@=';(){ return $? } && '
alias -g ::=';(){ return $? } || '