Dimitry Naldayev wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>>> Just for the record, I'll go out on a limb (not really on a limb as
>>> I can prove it with real life, actual circumstances) that the
>>> $(...) syntax will work in situations where `...` will not.
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 20:35 -0600, I wrote:
> echo ${BIGSTRING} | sed "s/^.*\($MYSTRING\).*$/\\${COUNTER}/"
>
> The word "string" was returned, as expected.
>
> JUSTFORBRUCE=`echo ${BIGSTRING} | sed "s/^.*\($MYSTRING\).*$/\\${COUNTER}/"`
>
> echo $JUSTFORBRUCE
>
> Woops, we didn't get what we
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:11:43AM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> I sent this to the dev list, but it didn't seem to get there.
> I'll wait a day or so and see what happens, but in the meantime,
> you may want to retract your statements, as they are a total
> falsehood.
Yes, after review I see
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Is that better phrasing?
Yep. :) And this discussion was good for showing us that `...` doesn't
work in exactly the same way as $(...), so thank you.
As I said, my vote is for $(...) in the book except for perhaps one
instance of `...` for educational value.
--
JH
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 07:12 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Granted, the $(...) may be easier to work with because of these caveats,
> but as it seems the behavior is known and documented, I'm not sure it's
> correct to say that `...` is broken.
I will retract the "broken" and would like to rep
Archaic wrote these words on 03/01/06 01:02 CST:
> Oh bollocks!
Not sure what bollocks means, but if it means "I'm totally confused,
on what the original statement is, but I'll post something anyway",
then it is an accurate word.
> Wrong:
> JUSTFORBRUCE=`echo ${BIGSTRING} | sed "s/^.*\($MYSTRING
Rainer Peter Feller wrote:
> Not that I am the one to decide ...
> but what is easier to "read"
> sed s%"`which bash`"%"'echo '/tools/bin/bash'`"% -i /somescript.sh
> or
> sed s%"$(which bash)"%$(echo '/tools/bin/bash')"% -i /somescript.sh
>
> if you read a book?
Wow. I don't think either is v
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/28/06 21:36 CST:
> Otherwise, you must concede that the constructs produce different
> results. And, looking at the example I provided, one is broken,
> one is not.
Certainly the constructs you provided produce different results. Did I
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
No. But the behavior is documented in the bash man page:
"When the old-style backquote form of substitution is used, backslash
retains its literal meaning except when followed by $, `, or \. The
first backquote not preceded by a backslash terminates the command
substitution
On 2/28/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anybody know right offhand if $(command) syntax is a bash-only
> thing?
>
I think it is bash only. Definitely not compatible with sh. On the
system at work:
$ uname -a
OSF1 server V5.1 2650 alpha
$ /bin/sh -c 'echo $(ls)'
/bin/sh: sy
10 matches
Mail list logo
