Dan Douglas wrote:
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 06:08:18 PM Linda Walsh wrote:
From the bash manpage, it would see that += is higher precedence
than assignment, so the increment would be done first, followed
by the attempt at an assignment of 1 to 1.
= and += have equal precedence. Associativi
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 06:08:18 PM Linda Walsh wrote:
> From the bash manpage, it would see that += is higher precedence
> than assignment, so the increment would be done first, followed
> by the attempt at an assignment of 1 to 1.
= and += have equal precedence. Associativity is right to left
Chris Down wrote:
Yes, I agree, it becomes ambiguous when described in this fashion. I think the
aesthetics of x+=y vs x=x+y are important here.
From the bash manpage, it would see that += is higher precedence
than assignment, so the increment would be done first, followed
by the attempt at a
On 2013-08-04 22:41, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> x+=a is the same as x=x+a.
In most cases I'd agree, in this case I think it changes the logic when
considering += as an atomic increment (which, of course, += isn't, but
aesthetically it presents itself as such) as opposed to two separate operations.
>
Chris Down writes:
> On 2013-08-03 17:04, Dan Douglas wrote:
>> Is it specified what the value of x should be after this expression?
>>
>> x=0; : $((x+=x=1))
>
> I don't know if it is specified in a standard (I suspect it may be undefined),
> but it looks pretty clear to me that the answer should
On 2013-08-03 17:04, Dan Douglas wrote:
> Is it specified what the value of x should be after this expression?
>
> x=0; : $((x+=x=1))
I don't know if it is specified in a standard (I suspect it may be undefined),
but it looks pretty clear to me that the answer should be 2. Has anyone proposed
logi
