On 6/18/19 11:20 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Seems kinda weird to continue calling it "ksh93" if it's being changed,
> but I don't make the decisions.
Korn once explained it as the "ksh93 language definition." So there are
multiple implementations of that language.
--
``The lyf so short, the cra
On 6/18/19 12:13 PM, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> On 18.6. 18:20, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:27:48AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
>>> $ ksh93 -c 'echo ${.sh.version}'
>>> Version ABIJM 93v- 2014-09-29
>>> $ ksh93 -c 'echo $(( 10# ))'
>>> ksh93: 10# : arithmetic syntax error
>>
>> I gue
On 6/17/19 9:30 AM, Jeremy Townshend wrote:
> Ilkka Virta's email helpfully pointed me to a somewhat related debate that
> occurred about 11 months ago. I agree with your comment in this debate:
>
> "There would be a good case for rejecting the '10#' because it's missing
> the value."
I'll
On 18.6. 18:20, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:27:48AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
$ ksh93 -c 'echo ${.sh.version}'
Version ABIJM 93v- 2014-09-29
$ ksh93 -c 'echo $(( 10# ))'
ksh93: 10# : arithmetic syntax error
I guess most Linux distributions are not shipping the 2014 version
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:27:48AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> $ ksh93 -c 'echo ${.sh.version}'
> Version ABIJM 93v- 2014-09-29
> $ ksh93 -c 'echo $(( 10# ))'
> ksh93: 10# : arithmetic syntax error
I guess most Linux distributions are not shipping the 2014 version of
ksh93 yet...?
wooledg:~$ ksh
On 6/18/19 1:52 AM, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> I still wish this could be fixed to do the useful thing without any
> workarounds, given it's what ksh and zsh do
I'm surprised people keep saying this.
$ ksh93 -c 'echo ${.sh.version}'
Version ABIJM 93v- 2014-09-29
$ ksh93 -c 'echo $(( 10# ))'
ksh93: 10
On 17.6. 18:47, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:30:27PM +0100, Jeremy Townshend wrote:
In the meantime it would seem cautionary to advise against the pitfall of
using base# prefixed to variables (contrary to
mywiki.wooledge.org/ArithmeticExpression) unless you can be confident th
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:30:27PM +0100, Jeremy Townshend wrote:
> In the meantime it would seem cautionary to advise against the pitfall of
> using base# prefixed to variables (contrary to
> mywiki.wooledge.org/ArithmeticExpression) unless you can be confident that
> they will never be decremente
Dear Chet
Many thanks for your impressively swift response. It is enlightening to see
how these expressions are parsed.
For the record, whilst I can now see how they are parsed, it feels
particularly unsatisfactory that the following two expressions yield the same
result when the variable i happ
On 14.6. 17:19, Jeremy Townshend wrote:
echo $((10#-1)) # -1 as expected
Earlier discussion about the same on bug-bash:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2018-07/msg00015.html
Bash doesn't support the minus (or plus) sign following the 10#.
I think the expression above seem
On 6/14/19 10:19 AM, Jeremy Townshend wrote:
> Bash Version: 4.4
> Patch Level: 19
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
> Unexpected and undocumented behaviour for arithmetic evaluation of
> negative numbers when prefixed with the optional "base#" (e.g. 10#${i}). The
> base prefix m
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='x86_64'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='x86_64-pc-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/locale' -DPACKA
12 matches
Mail list logo
