Re: weird behaviour of ((count++)) when using , , to change to lower case

2010-08-02 Thread Chet Ramey
On 8/1/10 7:05 PM, Dennis Williamson wrote:
> If I do the echo line twice, I get a segfault in both Bash
> 4.0.33(1)-release and 4.1.0(1)-release.

Thanks.  This will be fixed in bash-4.2.

> And you're right about being evaluated twice.

This was already changed after bash-4.1 was released; the change will be
in bash-4.2.

Chet
-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/



Re: weird behaviour of ((count++)) when using , , to change to lower case

2010-08-01 Thread Dennis Williamson
If I do the echo line twice, I get a segfault in both Bash
4.0.33(1)-release and 4.1.0(1)-release.

And you're right about being evaluated twice.

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Bernd Eggink  wrote:
> Am 01.08.2010 13:06, schrieb Andrew Benton:
>
>> Also good. Now try converting it to lower case with ,,
>>
>> andy:~$ count=0
>> andy:~$ echo "${days[${count}],,}, ${days[$((count++))],,},
>> ${days[$((count++))],,}"
>> monday, tuesday, thursday
>>
>> What happened to wednesday?
>
> I'd rather expect this to print "monday, monday, tuesday", since you left
> out the ++ in the first term.
>
> I think the problem is that the ,, operator causes each expression to be
> evaluated twice. That would explain this behaviour, and it's a bug IMHO.
>
> Regards,
> Bernd
>
> --
> Bernd Eggink
> http://sudrala.de
>
>



Re: weird behaviour of ((count++)) when using , , to change to lower case

2010-08-01 Thread Bernd Eggink

Am 01.08.2010 13:06, schrieb Andrew Benton:


Also good. Now try converting it to lower case with ,,

andy:~$ count=0
andy:~$ echo "${days[${count}],,}, ${days[$((count++))],,}, 
${days[$((count++))],,}"
monday, tuesday, thursday

What happened to wednesday?


I'd rather expect this to print "monday, monday, tuesday", since you 
left out the ++ in the first term.


I think the problem is that the ,, operator causes each expression to be 
evaluated twice. That would explain this behaviour, and it's a bug IMHO.


Regards,
Bernd

--
Bernd Eggink
http://sudrala.de