You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Boolean outputs are on a separate channel than normal output.
The relationship between predicates and booleans is not straightforward.
If we were to add boolean operators, we perhaps need to make one set for predicates and another set for booleans.
Let's simply ditch predicates and turn them into functions that output booleans.
Now that we don't have predicates, we can rework if as well. Right now if takes a pipeline and expects it to be a predicate; since we don't have predicates, we can make if take a value instead.
The downside is that now we have a totally different if than traditional shells. But nothing is really lost: the current similarity is only syntactical and not semantic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The current boolean/predicate story is a mess:
Boolean outputs are on a separate channel than normal output.
The relationship between predicates and booleans is not straightforward.
If we were to add boolean operators, we perhaps need to make one set for predicates and another set for booleans.
Let's simply ditch predicates and turn them into functions that output booleans.
Now that we don't have predicates, we can rework
if
as well. Right nowif
takes a pipeline and expects it to be a predicate; since we don't have predicates, we can makeif
take a value instead.The downside is that now we have a totally different
if
than traditional shells. But nothing is really lost: the current similarity is only syntactical and not semantic.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: