No, it’d be like, when you asked them do you know what a burger is? They pointed at a picture of a burger on the wall (they put this picture on the wall because for whatever reason people kept asking them to make burgers), and told you, of course we know what a burger is, we don’t make them, now order noodles or get out!
Okay, you know what… That’s actually better than what I said. Defeat acknowledged.
(However, it still seems a bit silly to me. name="value" will prompt you to enter set name "value", with your exact name/value prefilled. As far as I know, it really is just syntax substitution; or am I wrong here? Are there semantic differences that can’t be translated?)
i think it could be a slippery slope thing. things like name="value" are easy to parse and implement, but then what if people keep asking for a little bit more, and a little bit more again? bash’s syntax is very very complex, there will be no winners if fish has a half-assed implementation of what bash does, it’s better to not even start.
No, it’d be like, when you asked them do you know what a burger is? They pointed at a picture of a burger on the wall (they put this picture on the wall because for whatever reason people kept asking them to make burgers), and told you, of course we know what a burger is, we don’t make them, now order noodles or get out!
Okay, you know what… That’s actually better than what I said. Defeat acknowledged.
(However, it still seems a bit silly to me.
name="value"will prompt you to enterset name "value", with your exact name/value prefilled. As far as I know, it really is just syntax substitution; or am I wrong here? Are there semantic differences that can’t be translated?)i think it could be a slippery slope thing. things like
name="value"are easy to parse and implement, but then what if people keep asking for a little bit more, and a little bit more again? bash’s syntax is very very complex, there will be no winners if fish has a half-assed implementation of what bash does, it’s better to not even start.