Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: repeat count?
- X-seq: zsh-users 28674
- From: "Daniel Shahaf" <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-users@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: repeat count?
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:37:08 +0000
- Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/users/28674>
- Feedback-id: i425e4195:Fastmail
- In-reply-to: <thinkcrap!zeurkous!1674140226.24007@uucp>
- List-id: <zsh-users.zsh.org>
- References: <Y8WR4X/amuVc25nF@localhost> <CAN=4vMoojvizTs3tH4jy1A2oxtSW2-QQgUpO_BKm68-xJiNCnQ@mail.gmail.com> <thinkcrap!zeurkous!1674140226.24007@uucp>
zeurkous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 19 Jan 2023 14:57 +00:00:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 20:20:13 +0100, Roman Perepelitsa
> <roman.perepelitsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 7:06 PM Dominik Vogt <dominik.vogt@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Is it possible to get the pass number of a repeat loop from within
>>> the loop, or is it necessary to use a hand written counter?
>> I just realized that none of the replies actually answered your
>> question. There is no special parameter set by the shell that contains
>> the iteration counter in repeat loops. I'd love to have that myself.
> Then the question is: how would that work w/ nested repeat loops...?
Let's see. Draft requirements:
- Count from 1 upwards, incremented by 1 each iteration.
- Be read-only.¹
- Remain set after the loop ends, to facilitate testing it to determine
which iteration, if any, ran «break».
- Be possible to have a «repeat» loop call a function and afterwards
access its own iteration count, even if the function executes its own
- The variable could have a well-known name, and loops that call
functions before referencing the variable will need to save its value
- The variable's name could be specified by the user, as in «repeat -v i 42»
and then store the iteration number in $i. This would be backwards
incompatible in a corner case (the first word after «repeat» is a math
expression, so syntaxes of the form «repeat -foo» or «repeat --bar»
are valid today if SHORT_REPEAT hasn't been turned off).
- Or perhaps the arithmetic for() is good enough for now and we don't
need this syntactic sugar at all.
¹ Mainly because I don't want to think about «repeat -v i 10 ((++i))»
right now. If someone wants to spec a writable repeat count, go
Messages sorted by: