William Park wrote:
>> side note, this also fails:
>> $ echo {a}{b,c}
>> {a}{b,c}
>> -mike
>
> But,
> echo {b,c}{x}
> prints the correct result,
> b{x} c{x}
>
> Well, gentlemen, we've found a bug. Anyone sending in a patch? I don't
> use multiple braces that often, so it doesn't bother
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 08:16:40PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 29 January 2006 20:08, William Park wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 07:33:14PM -0500, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, William Park wrote:
> > > >Let's see...
> > > > a-{b{d,e}}-c
> > > > a-{bd,be
On Sunday 29 January 2006 20:08, William Park wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 07:33:14PM -0500, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, William Park wrote:
> > >Let's see...
> > > a-{b{d,e}}-c
> > > a-{bd,be}-c
> > > a-bd-c a-be-c
> > >
> > >It looks okey, I think.
> >
> > Exc
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 07:35:32PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 29 January 2006 19:23, William Park wrote:
> > Let's see...
> > a-{b{d,e}}-c
> > a-{bd,be}-c
>
> i'm pretty sure the commas are consumed in the expansion
>
> side note, this also fails:
> $ echo {a}{b,c}
> {a}{b,c
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 07:33:14PM -0500, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, William Park wrote:
> >Let's see...
> > a-{b{d,e}}-c
> > a-{bd,be}-c
> > a-bd-c a-be-c
> >
> >It looks okey, I think.
>
> Except that b{d,e} expands to 'bd be', not 'bd,be'.
Hmm... no. Internally
Hi Chet,
Bash-3.0 introduced {-2..2} syntax which generates -2, -1, 0, 1, 2.
Unfortunately, it clashes with my extension which doesn't do negative
integers; instead, mine was designed for "equal width" integer, like 00,
01, 02.
Do you plan to keep the negative integer features of {a..b}?
This is
On Sunday 29 January 2006 19:23, William Park wrote:
> Let's see...
> a-{b{d,e}}-c
> a-{bd,be}-c
i'm pretty sure the commas are consumed in the expansion
side note, this also fails:
$ echo {a}{b,c}
{a}{b,c}
-mike
___
Bug-bash mailing list
Bug-
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, William Park wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:37:56PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 29 January 2006 17:25, Bob Proulx wrote:
The bash manual documents this as "Patterns to be brace expanded
take the form of an optional PREAMBLE, followed by either a series
of com
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:37:56PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 29 January 2006 17:25, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > The bash manual documents this as "Patterns to be brace expanded
> > take the form of an optional PREAMBLE, followed by either a series
> > of comma-separated strings or a sequnc
On Sunday 29 January 2006 17:25, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The bash manual documents this as "Patterns to be brace expanded take
> the form of an optional PREAMBLE, followed by either a series of
> comma-separated strings or a sequnce expression between a pair of
> braces, followed by an optional POSTSCR
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> bash -c 'echo a-{b}-c'
> a-{b}-c
>
> seems to me current behavior is inconsistent
Yes. That is inconsistent with csh.
csh -c 'echo a-{b}-c'
a-b-c
It is related to brace expansion but seems like a different case than
the original poster's bug report. In the origina
Yuri Karlsbrun wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I, probably, need bash-help mailing list, but I could not find it.
>
> Here is the bash script fragment:
> LOG_FILE="./logfile"
> ...
>> $LOG_FILE
>
> I supposed that the statement above redirects stdout to the logfile.
> But the following 'echo' statement prin
Hello,
> This is fixed in 3.1,
Looking at the release notes, I'm not sure how I missed this. Sorry
for the noise.
> Presumably, without -r, the backslash is not considered a
> character, it is an escape mechanism.
Ok. I just thought perhaps the docs could be clarified to mention t
Tim Waugh wrote:
> echo a-{b{d,e}}-c
>
> Should get: a-{bd}-c a-{be}-c
> but actually get: a-bd-c a-be-c
Hmm... But csh is the origin of the brace expansion feature. So
shouldn't bash behave like csh? Which bash does do at this time.
csh -c 'echo a-{b{d,e}}-c'
a-bd-c a-b
Alan Sundell wrote:
> bash's "test" builtin can report the wrong results in many
> circumstances (e.g. read-only filesystems, noexec filesystems, ACLs,
> NFS, AFS, setuid executables, etc) because it uses stat() rather than
> access() for the unary -w, -r, -x, etc.
>
> Could the eaccess/euidaccess
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Yuri Karlsbrun wrote:
Hello,
I, probably, need bash-help mailing list, but I could not find it.
The best place is the Usenet news group, comp.unix.shell.
Here is the bash script fragment:
LOG_FILE="./logfile"
...
> $LOG_FILE
That statement will create an empty
Yuri Karlsbrun wrote:
> I, probably, need bash-help mailing list, but I could not find it.
>
> Here is the bash script fragment:
> LOG_FILE="./logfile"
> ...
> >$LOG_FILE
>
> I supposed that the statement above redirects stdout to the logfile.
> But the following 'echo' statement prints on the sc
On Saturday 28 January 2006 16:47, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Tim Waugh wrote:
> > echo a-{b{d,e}}-c
> >
> > Should get: a-{bd}-c a-{be}-c
> > but actually get: a-bd-c a-be-c
>
> Hmm... But csh is the origin of the brace expansion feature. So
> shouldn't bash behave like csh? Which bash doe
18 matches
Mail list logo
