Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: One possible answer to typeset vs. unset
- X-seq: zsh-workers 47720
- From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: One possible answer to typeset vs. unset
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 05:04:11 -0600
- Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/workers/47720>
- Archived-at: <http://www.zsh.org/sympa/arcsearch_id/zsh-workers/2020-12/CAMP44s3y2zqbG%3D8Zxqmn5RcwHC-CF2VaiwADhUbj2AokRKndkA%40mail.gmail.com>
- Authentication-results: zsh.org; iprev=pass (mail-wr1-f52.google.com) smtp.remote-ip=184.108.40.206; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.a=rsa-sha256; dmarc=pass header.from=gmail.com; arc=none
- Cc: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o3LmrA1a7xGC+HTIwACSCSwvztHUn7GJS+6sgC0Rm2c=; b=C3+/o6q3+wktoNs9p3DFlSKUpUlUbgVvXwr4l1oJpiQ0a7asysdXdcrj0FvunExRgC 9agkyZlygZKU8Oht9nJpatfCKhh+uqrIlYqn42aEIocBD7LA6oD4IEqi3T6X8w3a26iG 6lWbIO1bSQdXWCxRoLd1buh/OuXynEx+zljzFACbBvr7oAebXlWJVNTwmT8A1gnc4/aB A/4bsgxcSq7POKgLciYRF6rISIDKcxcGwWivVRhjqI1aRX+H08XHNGCMUgoPfrS7uaQB 2k55DEEV+wzdoEiQsum6q96VFhd3aE7FXAWYicm0ulWkuNdJhm+evGl62lbiRWH8lrBB 9O/Q==
- In-reply-to: <CAH+w=7a0es6W_Si9YbQzszzYBSuubmocot_8goywaL_Owbemail@example.com>
- List-archive: <http://www.zsh.org/sympa/arc/zsh-workers>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-owner: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe%20zsh-workers>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe%20zsh-workers>
- References: <CAH+w=7Zh8URUiLF2n1x-ZrvKO+=JC8wf+n692sRsFTRbkJrzXw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMP44s2gZnM_JAi78gJwB+uX75Sdx0MQPkW7SZ6tUk85xEjvQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH+w=7a0es6W_Si9YbQzszzYBSuubmocot_8goywaL_Owbemail@example.com>
- Sender: zsh-workers-request@xxxxxxx
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:19 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:55 AM Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I don't know what would be the proper solution for tied variables, but
> > I used this hack to make the tests pass:
> I looked at this for a while yesterday evening. My conclusion is that
> tied variables are already a bit of a hack.
Indeed. It might not be worthwhile to look at them at this point.
> Consequently I don't know if your patch would cause a different test
> for unset-ness (that hasn't been written yet) to fail, but something
> like that patch may be unavoidable.
I can't parse that. What would such unset-ness test do?
Anyway. I don't see the two approaches particularly different. If
nobody can argue that "typeset var" and "typeset -i var" should behave
differently (one with no value and the other with value), then some
kind of flag like PM_DECLARED would be needed. I'll add that to my
Next, I think all the instances in which PM_UNSET is checked should be
verified, to see if PM_DECLAREDNULL makes sense in those. I'll do
Next, we need a way to make sure $empty[(i|I)] returns something
sensible (that would be for both approaches).
And I think that's it. All that's left is deciding what flag would
turn this mode on.
Lastly, I don't know if there is any low-hanging fruit, for example;
doing the same as bash 5.0 with localvar_inherit and localvar_unset.
In my opinion localvar_inherit should also be the default (and
presumably that's what POSIX will eventually decide). I don't quite
get localvar_unset, but seems to also be a sensible default. Or maybe
that's an entirely new topic.
Messages sorted by: