On 2/21/08, Travis Vitek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> >On 2/19/08, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Travis Vitek wrote:
> >>> sebor-2 wrote:
> >>>> + // weirdly-formed brace expansions -- fixed in post-bash-3.1
> >>>> + TEST ("a-{b{d,e}}-c", "a-{bd}-c a-{be}-c");
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand how this could be interpreted as valid
> >>> brace expansion at all. The body of the expansion is '{b{d,e}}'.
> >>> Paragraph 5 [and paragraph 1 for that matter] require a
> >>> correctly-formed brace expansion have unquoted [unescaped?]
> >>> opening and closing braces, and at least one unquoted comma or
> >>> a valid sequence expression. The body does not meet either of
> >>> these requirements, so it must be invalid.
> >>>
> >
> >The C-Shell that had brace expansion long before Bash did outputs
> >a-bd-c a-be-c as Martin expects. It doesn't require a comma at all.
>
>
> Yes, but "a-bd-c a-be-c" is very different from "a-{bd}-c a-{be}-c",
> which the test expects.
Mea culpa! My eyesight must be going. I completely overlooked the braces.
>
> Many of the shells implement brace expansion in one way or another. One
> problem that I see with bash is that the documentation appears to be out
> of date or incomplete. The man pages [and the reference manual]
> explicitly say...
>
> A correctly-formed brace expansion must contain unquoted opening
>
> and closing braces, and at least one unquoted comma or a valid
>
> sequence expression. Any incorrectly formed brace expansion is
> left unchanged.
According to the Bash FAQ this is supposed to be the only difference.
http://www.unixguide.net/unix/bash/D2.shtml
-- Mark
