On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:05:51AM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Again, `unset` has different expectations, because it seems like it
> would be a special construct
Only to you, and only because you brought in some expectations from
a different language.
> -- since it's dealing with *lvalues*.
woo
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Clark Wang wrote:
>
> Different people have different expectations which they believe are
> all important.
Yes, and I have already went over this several times: this is an issue
that does confuse people, both ones that I have spoken to and in
tutorial/example/etc
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Clark Wang wrote:
> >
> > What `unset' does is special but there's nothing special when parsing
> > the command and bash even does not care if it's built-in command or
> > not.
>
> Exactly -- and this kind of
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> Let's see if I can find some compromise language that will take care
> of the general case. Since it's a compromise, no one will be
> satisfied, of course.
Thanks -- any improvement would be good.
--
((x=>x(x))(x=>x(x)))
On 10/26/17 10:50 PM, Clark Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>>>
>>> It's more of a general statement about arrays, though it appears in
>>> the paragraph that discusses unset, so it's in the man page secti
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Clark Wang wrote:
>
> What `unset' does is special but there's nothing special when parsing
> the command and bash even does not care if it's built-in command or
> not.
Exactly -- and this kind of a clarification is exactly the thing that
many people are unaware o
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>
> I already said why `unset` is different. If it wasn't clear, a direct
> example is the fact that `delete` in javascript is a special syntax
> rather than a function. To make it more confusing, the other obvious
> place where an lvalue app
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Clark Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>> 1. Drop the current "Care must be taken ... the entire array." two
>>sentences and replace them with some "See the unset builtin
>>description below".
>
> It's not only about u
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:00 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> >
> > It's more of a general statement about arrays, though it appears in
> > the paragraph that discusses unset, so it's in the man page section on
> > arrays. You have to be careful abo
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> It's more of a general statement about arrays, though it appears in
> the paragraph that discusses unset, so it's in the man page section on
> arrays. You have to be careful about putting the same information in
> too many different places --
On 10/26/17 11:28 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Pathname expansion (globbing) is
>> one of the word expansions performed before a simple command is
>> executed. The `unset' builtin is no different.
>
> The last sentence is showing why it's a surprise: it is confu
Pierre Gaston:
> I think it's even more likely to happen with eg: read array[i]
Maybe, but see below.
> There is a large number of pitfalls in bash
> (http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls) that most people ignore.
And it doesn't even mention the unset problem, I think.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017
On 10/26/17 1:18 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Bash surprised me with the behavior mentioned here:
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15897473
>
> This can be pretty bad in that it's very unexpected (see the comments).
I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Pathname expansion (globbing) is on
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Bash surprised me with the behavior mentioned here:
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15897473
>
> This can be pretty bad in that it's very unexpected (see the comments).
> Also, the surprise can be triggered without nullglob as wel
Bash surprised me with the behavior mentioned here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15897473
This can be pretty bad in that it's very unexpected (see the comments).
Also, the surprise can be triggered without nullglob as well:
$ foo=(a b c)
$ touch foo0
$ unset foo[0]
$ e
Jan Schampera wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html#Brace-Expansion
>
> The brace expansion increment syntax is shown wrong.
>
> OLD:
>
> A sequence expression takes the form {x..y[incr]}, where x and y are
> either integers or single characters, and in
Good morning,
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html#Brace-Expansion
The brace expansion increment syntax is shown wrong.
OLD:
A sequence expression takes the form {x..y[incr]}, where x and y are
either integers or single characters, and incr, an optional increment,
is an integer.
17 matches
Mail list logo