[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: nofork command substitution
From: |
Koichi Murase |
Subject: |
Re: nofork command substitution |
Date: |
Thu, 25 May 2023 22:14:05 +0900 |
2023年5月25日(木) 21:13 Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>:
> | Does that mean ${(command)} would be explicitly unsupported even
> | though {(command)} is allowed for the brace grouping?
>
> The two are mostly unrelated.
Yes, they are independent, but there is still a "choice" to make the
new grammar similar to the existing one for the Principle Of Least
Astonishment or like that. I admit that what would be the POLA design
could depend on the person, so we can discuss it.
> What Chet is planning on removing is allowing the 'C' in the opening ${C
> that indicates that this is a command substitution, and not some other kind
> of expansion, will no longer have the case where C=='('.
Ah, OK. This comment solved my question. I was misunderstanding it as
if the trailing semicolon would become mandatory.
- Re: nofork command substitution, (continued)
Re: nofork command substitution, Chet Ramey, 2023/05/19
Re: nofork command substitution, Grisha Levit, 2023/05/19
Re: nofork command substitution, Koichi Murase, 2023/05/23
- Re: nofork command substitution, Chet Ramey, 2023/05/24
- Re: nofork command substitution, Robert Elz, 2023/05/25
- Re: nofork command substitution,
Koichi Murase <=
- Re: nofork command substitution, Chet Ramey, 2023/05/25
- Re: nofork command substitution, Robert Elz, 2023/05/25
- Re: nofork command substitution, Chet Ramey, 2023/05/25
Re: nofork command substitution, Grisha Levit, 2023/05/23
Re: nofork command substitution, Daniel Douglas, 2023/05/25
Fwd: Re: nofork command substitution, Chet Ramey, 2023/05/19