Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-Id: <160110105411.ZM788@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:54:11 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20160110003755.GA6751@tarsus.local2>
Comments: In reply to Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
        "Re: PATCH misc. cleanup in bin_print()" (Jan  1, 12:37am)
References: <160104224749.ZM6378@torch.brasslantern.com> 
	<20160110003755.GA6751@tarsus.local2>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: PATCH misc. cleanup in bin_print()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I'm not sure why, but although these messages from Daniel are dated Jan 1,
I didn't receive them until yesterday.

On Jan 1, 12:37am, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH misc. cleanup in bin_print()
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote on Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 22:47:49 -0800:
} > -    if (OPT_ISSET(ops, 'z') + OPT_ISSET(ops, 's') + OPT_ISSET(ops, 'v') > 1) {
} > -	zwarnnam(name, "only one of -z, -s, or -v allowed");
} 
} Should -p be in this set too?

It might be possible to include -p and -u in that set, yes.  I caught
those later with

    zwarnnam(name, "-p or -u not allowed with -s, -S, -v, or -z");

but I wasn't sure whether -p and -u actually should warn about being
mutually exclusive, because there's the undocumented special case of
"-u p" (like >&p) which is the same as -p and might be written "-up".

Similarly I'd like to warn about "-f fmt -c" but there's a Test/ for
that so maybe something depends on it.