Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/04/23/20:34:06
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Peter A. Castro writes:
>
> > Seriously, can you point me to this documented problem?
>
> man zsh
Well, gosh, I just can't seem to find anywhere in the 'man' page for
'zsh' that talks anything about this type of posix problem, no matter how
many times I RTFM. Perhaps you meant 'zshoptions', which says the
following:
"
FUNCTION_ARGZERO <C> <Z>
When executing a shell function or sourcing a
script, set $0 temporarily to the name of the function/script.
"
That's not a "posix problem", it's an option. You can configure zsh for
posix compliance, but it's not a hard and fast requirement. And, other
shells are just are susceptable to conformance issues.
And if that's not the quote, please extract the section from the specific
man page and email it to me.
> > And, it appears this may be a platform specific issue
>
> IIRC, it is a configuration issue. Configurations often differ
> between platforms and installations.
Well, no kidding. I can build bash stripped down and it won't have half
the "required" posix features. And, as I've already said, zsh can be
configured for posix compliance.
> > , as I can't seem to reproduce it under Linux or Cygwin for anything
> > V4.0.3 and up (and, yes I've just been trying it).
>
> Yes, well that's grand for you, but far too little incentive for me to
> probably break it again for others.
I guess I was trying to say that recent versions don't seem to exhbit
this condition by default and that anyone experiencing this should
upgrade to a newer zsh, or perhaps, take the time to configure their
environment properly. That's the price we all pay for being in/using
software to begin with.
> >> added code to work around documented brokenness of that
> >> @!"`%&#$ zsh, on user request.
>
> > And, I'd have to question why you have to special case for zsh in the
> > first place.
>
> What exactly in `on user request' do you find so hard to understand?
Well, gee, I don't know. As most "user requests" go, they are very
specific to their environment and usage and rarely take "the big picture"
into account. Perhaps you could have taken a more broad approach to
solving it? Or is that not sufficient incentive either?
> You did not even read this thread, did you?
I read every word of it. Did you read everything I wrote back? Why are
you even testing for the name of the program? There are other, arguably
better, ways of solving configuring of shell variables. And, I also
stated that I can get bash to mis-behave just as easily as you say zsh
does, so this "feature" you are using isn't really something you should
be relying on in the first place. And don't bother quoting me the
section concerning shell behaviour. I've read it before and it's
somewhat lacking in definition. In fact, there are many aspects of the
posix standard which are "subject to interpretation".
Sorry, but I feel you might want to investigate taking a different
approach to how your scripts operate. Or perhaps I should start
submitting problem reports using my stripped down bash version? :)
Well, it seems we only disagree on this subject, and as far as I'm
concerned this is now OT for Cygwin.
> Jan.
--
Peter A. Castro <doctor AT fruitbat DOT org> or <Peter DOT Castro AT oracle DOT com>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -