Hi,
I'd like to report a bug with the *--pretty-print* feature of bash. When I
run the following script:
*coproc sleep 5*
the pretty-printed result is
*coproc COPROC* sleep 5
The reason this happens is because within Bash's AST every *coproc* is
given a name regardless of whether the user
Hi,
I'm reaching out to report a bug with the -*-pretty-print* option in bash.
Consider the following script:
*case esac in (esac) echo esac;; esac*
When bash is run with *--pretty-print* on this script the result is:
*case esac in esac)echo esac;;esac*
which is no longer
On 2/27/24 6:23 AM, Emanuele Torre wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:10:06PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:50:46 +0100
From:Emanuele Torre
Message-ID:
| To use esac as a pattern you need to use the (esac) syntax,
Or quote it
On 2/26/24 6:50 PM, Emanuele Torre wrote:
Hello.
I have noticed that declare -f does not output valid code when a
pattern is `esac'.
Thanks for the report. More precisely, if the first word in the pattern
list is the literal string "esac".
"The grammar shows that reserved words can be used
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:23:41PM +0100, Emanuele Torre wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:10:06PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> > Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:50:46 +0100
> > From:Emanuele Torre
> > Message-ID:
> >
> > | To use esac as a pattern you need to use the
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 04:10:06PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:50:46 +0100
> From:Emanuele Torre
> Message-ID:
>
> | To use esac as a pattern you need to use the (esac) syntax,
>
> Or quote it
>
> 'esac')
>
> (or similar).
>
> kre
Date:Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:50:46 +0100
From:Emanuele Torre
Message-ID:
| To use esac as a pattern you need to use the (esac) syntax,
Or quote it
'esac')
(or similar).
kre
On Tuesday, February 27, 2024, Martin D Kealey
wrote:
>
> I've been thinking for a while now that POSIX made a mistake when it
> permitted ';;' before the closing 'esac'.
>
I think that decision was made before POSIX. Besides it's handy when
generating case clauses on the fly, you may not
I've been thinking for a while now that POSIX made a mistake when it
permitted ';;' before the closing 'esac'. If ';;' were prohibited there,
then the parser could be sure that the next word after every ';;' would be a
pattern, even if it looks like 'esac'. But as things stand, there's an
