Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-f796c6d000001486-76-577b9e939556 Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:48:32 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: Zsh Hackers' List Subject: Re: Next release (5.3) Message-id: <20160705124832.342d9e48@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <20160705093321.79d7c4bc@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> References: <20160704114016.190f48be@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <160704080424.ZM12848@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160705093321.79d7c4bc@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xq7qT51WHGzy4KG5xsPkhkwOjx6qD H5gCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mi70TWArWMJR8eLVQ9YGxutsXYycHBICJhL/zmyBssUkLtxb D2YLCSxllDjZIt7FyAVkz2CS+Hl0FTuEc5pRYv2l6awQzhlGiRN7t7KAtLAIqEr0bZ7HDGKz CRhKTN00m7GLkYNDREBbov2jGEhYWEBeor/1GtgGXgF7id0Lz7CD2JwCDhLz2ydAzQTa/PLK FLA5/AL6Elf/fmKCOM9eYuaVM4wQzYISPybfA9vLLKAlsXlbEyuELS+xec1bZogX1CVu3N3N PoFReBaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLyKUTS1NLmgOCk911CvODG3uDQvXS85P3cTIyScv+xgXHzM6hCj AAejEg/viYVV4UKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVEeHfOqQ4X4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzjt3 1/sQIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimCwTB6dUAyPHgbJHWo23mTnvbP17Zfqrly3qVrPuMu4PO9zSKS4k xnRdyZHN+Ifqgpceis8kq1jlbixfdGCV4MT0L46HOxn+58/bfCKpS3ppY2/f1iPf5zEeZpsT eyNnXevfAOeZPb92F23+UVF/+dmTeKt9fRrz7j+58/GWo5Lko9o7a6zVWORSjsiol1xQYinO SDTUYi4qTgQALUCqyWMCAAA= X-Seq: zsh-workers 38798 On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 09:33:21 +0100 Peter Stephenson wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 08:04:24 -0700 > Bart Schaefer wrote: > > (1) Daniel's suggested change to :A [care to offer an opinion?] > > I'd be vaguely inclined to make sure it does what the doc currently says > and leave it at that. But that's only because I've not worked out a > case where I want anything different. It's too difficult to come up > with a categorical answer because it depends whether the user is used to > CHASE_BLAH behaviour (I'm not suggesting option-specific behaviour, > either). Thinking out loud, don't take any notice... It would be possible to add a different letter for this. However, I think you're still faced with asking what the user actually expects from the paths they use, which comes back to the option settings. So, actually, option dependence, although apparently just giving you extra ways of going wrong in a script or function, isn't necessarily *that* stupid in practice. pws