On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:04:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 25 May 2008 11:45:37 am Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:06:47AM -0600, John E Hein wrote:
> > > FWIW, it seems bash and sh report line number differently.
> > >
> > > # grep -n ^ ~/tmp/ln
> > > 1:#!/bin/sh
> > > 2:echo f line: $LINENO
> > > 3:f()
> > > 4:{
> > > 5:echo f line: $LINENO
> > > 6:}
> > > 7:
> > > 8:f
> > > 9:echo main line: $LINENO
> > > 10:f
> > >
> > >
> > > # /bin/sh ~/tmp/ln
> > > f line: 2
> > > f line: 3
> > > main line: 9
> > > f line: 3
> > >
> > >
> > > # bash ~/tmp/ln
> > > f line: 2
> > > f line: 5
> > > main line: 9
> > > f line: 5
> >
> > Yes, I know. I think it is a bug in bash as SUSv3 states:
> >
> > "Set by the shell to a decimal number representing the current
> > sequential line number (numbered starting with 1) within a script or
> > function before it executes each command."
>
> Actually, the bash way seems more intuitive. And it does say "the current
> sequentional line number within a ... function before it executes each
> command"
>
> The "within a function" implies that this property goes inside of functions
> instead of forcing all commands in a function to use the starting line of the
> function which is what you are saying?
I've started a thread about that on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
