Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: [PATCH] declarednull: rename DECLARED to NULL
- X-seq: zsh-workers 48486
- From: Oliver Kiddle <opk@xxxxxxx>
- To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] declarednull: rename DECLARED to NULL
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 23:58:01 +0200
- Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/workers/48486>
- In-reply-to: <CAH+w=7Z1ZRiTggr_Y=PdaEQ4H06t_Dq2R5PQ3fm7TOVxwwsUoQ@mail.gmail.com>
- List-id: <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <CAH+w=7aHddgDB9jbKoL2pceNwPM48pF6+V3oiHzd8versYVW7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMP44s2v4dJJe8XhGfzzvsANMiT25COreKEhuqF3VgEfqSZ4Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH+w=7ZL0KGcd8b4mmRhMSPuX-bEgMZi5XG7G37vLo1m87GUAg@mail.gmail.com> <20210104061718.GB14783@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> <CAH+w=7ZX8ddgLH3DdsrCg6pgxY8KbRo1nqF5qLxZ2HL0JtcWNw@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAH+w=7a5xzztvJ9hRB-2-LyzyZFx74Pfy5z8cJu01=hOh_AHQw@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAH+w=7ZQhoS8dfN+y_O712wXYCW1kWN_TDT14AqZ07AubM2firstname.lastname@example.org> <83994-1616978678.232193@jPMH.zQZs.0I47> <CAH+w=7Z1ZRiTggr_Y=PdaEQ4H06t_Dq2R5PQ3fm7TOVxwwsUoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:44 PM Oliver Kiddle <opk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It seems fairly self-contained and could have it's own option. typeset
> > isn't a builtin. posix compatibility options aren't really improvements
> > but someone might prefer this behaviour.
> (I'm reading that as "typeset isn't a POSIX builtin"). There has at
I meant it more in the sense of "typeset is a reserved word". I know
that's only true to a limited extent and a future POSIX standardisation
of local would likely only cover functionality that works as a builtin.
I don't really have a strong opinion but would like to see the work
finished off and pushed.
> I'm also somewhat concerned that choosing a descriptive name for a new
> option is going to spawn another argument. TYPESET_DOES_NOT_SET ?
I can understand that, its never easy to name these things.
> As mentioned long ago, it could also be an emulation-mode thing,
> although that makes it a lot more difficult to access at a scripting
I'd be fine with that too if you prefer. If you think you might want to
change how it is controlled later, an internal macro would make that
easier. But I'm, not sure backward compatibility concerns would ever
allow that anyway.
Messages sorted by: