Re: Bug in ${(z)...} lexing, or what?

[Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:

> Sven wrote:
> > There is still something fishy, though. A string like `ls (#i)foo' is
> > broken into `ls' and `(#i)foo', but `[[ (#i)foo ]]' is broken into
> > `[[', `(', `#i', `)', ... I haven't found out where and why this
> > happens yet.
> 
> I can partly answer that.  There's a context dependency in conditions,
> because a `(' may introduce the start of a pattern, as here, or it may
> introduce the start of a group.  Luckily, the former only happens when we
> are expecting an argument to a test (you can't have patterns on the left of
> an `=' or `!=', otherwise the issue would have been unresolvable) and the
> latter when we are expecting a complete test, so we can check.  In your
> example, `(' should indeed be a single token introducing a group, so the
> parsing is correct.  I don't know exactly what happens on the right of an
> `=', but it's possible that in that case, too, the `(' is lexed before we
> decide and the string put together later, but it may also be normal.

I should have used this example:

  % a='[[ a = (#i)foo ]]'
  % print -l ${(z)a}
  [[
  a
  =
  (
  #i
  )
  foo
  ]]


Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx