Thanks for your response. In my opinion, in let "<>" and $((<>)) constructs all variables should be evaluated, so that $-sign for them is to be just optional
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 2:28 AM Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > On 9/17/23 3:59 PM, Victor Pasko wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could you please take a look at attached bug.bash. > > > > Maybe, not all math combinations were presented there or the test has > > duplications somehow. > > Here are results of several runs with test# as argument > > All the examples use the base#number syntax, where `base' is a (decimal) > number and `number' is an integer constant in that arithmetic base. > > The issues seem to be misunderstandings and unwarranted expectations. > Several of the test cases use (literal) base10#number, which is an obvious > error -- the base is a number and doesn't include the word `base'. Others > seem to assume that the number, which is an integer constant, can include > non-digits that are out of range for the current base. > > For instance, when the base is, say, 32, you can use `res1' as an integer > constant, because those are all valid in base 32, which uses > 0123456789abcdefghiklmnopqrstuv as `digits' (if I've counted right). In > base 10, those are invalid. > > There's also some confusion about word expansion. The arguments to `let' > and the words between $(( and )) undergo the word expansions documented > in the man page under `Arithmetic Expansion' before the expression goes > to the arithmetic evaluator. This means that something like `$base10#$res1' > will expand to a word with the current values of the shell variables > `base10' and `res1' (e.g., `10#010') before the arithmetic evaluator is > invoked. > > -- > ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer > ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates > Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/ > > -- -- PSK
