OÄuz writes:
>> It's a violation of scope.
>
> It's a violation of lexical scope, I'm asking why not implement
> dynamic scope, what's wrong with it?
Yes ... but the history of programming languages has been the history of
learning that dynamic scoping is dangerous to program and lexical
On 2021/10/30 09:07, Robert Elz wrote:
oguzismailuy...@gmail.com said:
| `break' is not a keyword in the shell, but a special command.
That's true. However, 99%**1 of script writers don't see
it that way,g they believe it is just like "if" or
"while" or "done" or "return".
That's
On 2021-10-30 at 23:07 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> For people who don't believe that all programming languages should work
> the same way (usually the same way as the one they learned first) this
> isn't necessarily as important - but that's a tiny majority of people.
Uh? That's a quite different
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:45:05PM +0300, Oğuz wrote:
> I know, it's great. Though I still couldn't figure out how to have a
> command run on login and it drives me mad.
Depends on *how* you log in.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 7:07 PM Robert Elz wrote:
>
> What POSIX says about this (which you probably know already) is:
>
> A loop shall enclose a break or continue command if the loop
> lexically encloses the command. A loop lexically encloses a
> break or continue command
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 6:55 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> You might be interested in
>
> https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=842
The only argument against dynamic scoping there is that one might use
`break 1000' for exiting the outermost lexically enclosing loop and I
don't think anyone does
What POSIX says about this (which you probably know already) is:
A loop shall enclose a break or continue command if the loop
lexically encloses the command. A loop lexically encloses a
break or continue command if the command is:
[and just paraphrasing the conditions]
On 10/30/21 11:02 AM, Oğuz wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:50 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
As Chet said, it's counterintuitive. Most people don't expect function A
to be able to affect loops inside function B.
I do, and a subshell can prevent function A from affecting loops
inside function B.
such stuff could be with aliases maybe accomplished, not sure of your req's
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 17:03 Oğuz wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:50 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > As Chet said, it's counterintuitive. Most people don't expect function A
> > to be able to affect loops inside
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:50 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> As Chet said, it's counterintuitive. Most people don't expect function A
> to be able to affect loops inside function B.
I do, and a subshell can prevent function A from affecting loops
inside function B. But that is not a real problem, you
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 02:39:19PM +0300, Oğuz wrote:
> I found that this behavior had been introduced in 2014, with the
> following commit message:
>
> > set loop_level to 0
> > when entering a function so break and continue in functions don't
> > break loops running outside of the function. Fix
11 matches
Mail list logo
