general: Remove redundant usage of cat
#1901
Conversation
|
@belak any view? |
|
I held off on this one before because I wanted to test it myself - it might be a little while until I can do that |
|
This is an interesting PR, to be sure - I didn't know this was possible. It mostly makes sense, but it's not the direction my brain would go for these. I like the change in modules/python/init.zsh - that's a fairly common convention when reading from files which I've seen in multiple places before. I have no strong opinions on the heredocs - they work, as far as I can tell, they're solid, and will probably perform marginally better. However, if it was purely my decision, I probably wouldn't push for that replacement - it's a bit less readable and doesn't follow with common conventions (I've never seen that before - really neat that it works), especially as seen in other shells. That hasn't stopped us before, at least when there's a zsh convenience, but for me in this specific case it wouldn't be worth it. I'm a fan of the replacement in modules/python/init.zsh, and if you feel strongly about the heredoc change or think it adds enough value, you're definitely welcome to merge it as-is. |
|
Yes, readability does take a hit, I admit. But Zsh "hieroglyphs" (with all esoteric single-character flags and switches) probably don't focus on readability anyway I guess :) One probable reason we don't see this convention around is probably because of POSIX compliance. Besides, pure Zsh optimized interactive shell is a niche space. I'll hold off merging this just yet. Let's see if this PR can evolve a bit. |
In general, the substitution ‘$(cat foo)’ may be replaced by the equivalent but faster ‘$(<foo)’. See: https://zsh.sourceforge.io/Doc/Release/Expansion.html#Command-Substitution
In general, the substitution ‘$(cat foo)’ may be replaced by the
equivalent but faster ‘$(<foo)’.