On 3/17/17 11:30 AM, D630 wrote:
> There is a parse error in B:
Thanks for the report. I'll take a look.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp://cnswww.cns.c
---
lib/readline/complete.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/readline/complete.c b/lib/readline/complete.c
index 13241d13..726d51fb 100644
--- a/lib/readline/complete.c
+++ b/lib/readline/complete.c
@@ -2644,7 +2644,7 @@ rl_filename_completion_function (c
On 3/17/17 5:43 PM, Grisha Levit wrote:
> Fair enough; sorry for the vague report. I thought it was surprising that:
>
> 1. \! and \# increment at different times during command entry
OK, I see what you mean. They are incremented at different times, and by
different "agents". The command numbe
On 3/17/17 5:43 PM, Grisha Levit wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> when PS1 is expanded the first time, the "current" history entry is the
>> one corresponding to the last command entered
>
>> PS2 looks at the current history entry, which is 530 since we've
>> started
On 3/17/17 8:21 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> I don't expect the need to have to add "local var" in
>
> (
>unset -v var
>echo "${var-OK}"
> )
>
> would be obvious to many people beside you though.
Try the following:
function foo
{
(
unset -v IFS
recho "${IFS-unset}"
On 3/17/17 6:35 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> The problem is the non-obvious nature of unset's interaction with scope,
> (and the lack of documentation). Not much can be done about the former,
> as it is with so many things.
How would you suggest improving the documentation? I can see highlighting
the
On 3/17/17 5:51 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> Now, if that "split" functions is called from within a function
> that declares $IFS local like:
[...]
> because after the "unset IFS", $IFS is not unset (which would
> result in the default splitting behaviour) but set to ":" as it
> was befo
Op 27-02-17 om 21:03 schreef Chet Ramey:
> If you think you have a winning argument, initiate a new discussion with
> the Austin Group. You might want to dig up the mail archives from
> October, 2014 and look at the discussion that preceded interpretation 888.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm finding
