On Saturday, December 15, 2012 5:23:04 PM UTC-5, Chet Ramey wrote:
> There is already a proposal for a new option similar to what you want; you
> can read the discussion at
>
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=537
Thank you for all the references, I'll have a look!
On 11/2/12 10:48 AM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've encountered a very strange behavior regarding variable scope and traps,
> which looks very much like a bug.
This will be fixed, to the extent that identical blocks of code like the
two below will do the same thing, in the next
On 10/5/12 9:19 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Here's an updated version of a patch I did a few years ago to add loadable
> support for bash under HP-UX 10. The previous patch was for bash 4.0.
> This one has been updated for bash 4.2. It is fundamentally the same
> patch, just with different context
On 12/12/12 1:04 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> Hello. Could we possibly modify or create an additional variant of "typeset
> -n"
> which produces "real" references rather than just dynamic references by name?
> In other words, I'd like to be able to create reference variables that always
> point to the
On 12/14/12 6:28 AM, Fiedler Roman wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> One of our bash-scrips failed with very low frequency but randomly. The
> result was that exactly 1 byte was lost, so the string returned by "read -t
> 1" was too short. The culprit seems to be the built-in read function itself,
> the
On 12/15/12 11:54 AM, matei.da...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 14, 2012 6:23:41 PM UTC-5, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Short answer: historical compatibility. 'set -e' has been specified to
>> behave the way it did 30 years ago in one reference implementation, and
>> while you can argue till you
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:01 PM, gregrwm wrote:
> >> > echo !(??|foo|bar)
> >>
> >> precisely where i started this thread, !(??)
> >
> > +(??) and !(??) are completely different things. !(??) was never
> mentioned in the original question, and should work as expected.
>
> yow, truly, you're saying
>> > echo !(??|foo|bar)
>>
>> precisely where i started this thread, !(??)
>
> +(??) and !(??) are completely different things. !(??) was never
mentioned in the original question, and should work as expected.
yow, truly, you're saying +(??) selects *any multiple* of 2chars, but !(??)
excludes 2cha
On Friday, December 14, 2012 6:23:41 PM UTC-5, Eric Blake wrote:
> Short answer: historical compatibility. 'set -e' has been specified to
> behave the way it did 30 years ago in one reference implementation, and
> while you can argue till you are blue in the face that the reference
> implementatio
