On 3/7/25 12:23 PM, John Wiersba wrote:
You're discouraging it's use by not documenting it. BTW, according to
those links below, apparently zsh documents it (and encourages its use)?
I think "encourages" is a very generous reading of "These are
non-standard and are likely not to be obvious ev
Thanks, Chet!
Yes, you're right that zsh definitely does not encourage use of these
non-standard constructs.
This whole thread got started when I accidentally created a mashup of
shell/perl, similar to:
for (( i=0; i<3; ++i )) { echo $i; }
and was really quite surprised to find that i
On 3/8/25 3:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
But:
$ echo {a..{z,y}}
a..z a..y
Is this documented? I would expect it to produce
{a..z} {a..y}
As fate would have it, I fixed this case about a month ago after a separate
conversation.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - C
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025, at 12:38 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> There are other weird, undocumented things that you could have the
> same conversation about. ${#@} is equivalent to ${#}
This is documented and not at all weird. $# came from Bourne, and
${#@} is a logical extension of ${#var} that happe
On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 12:38:38 PM EDT, Zachary Santer
wrote:
> Another alternative would be for bash to print a warning whenever it
> encounters this syntax.
There are precedents for this kind of behavior in languages like perl which
issue warnings
for deprecated features for several rel
