-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Mike Frysinger on 2/22/2009 10:03 PM:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
to option parsing has broken that
$
Mike Frysinger wrote:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
to option parsing has broken that
$ f(){ return -1; }; f
-bash: return: -1: invalid option
return: usage:
On Monday 23 February 2009 07:50:30 Eric Blake wrote:
According to Mike Frysinger on 2/22/2009 10:03 PM:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
related to option parsing has broken
On Monday 23 February 2009 08:48:32 Chet Ramey wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
related to option parsing has broken that
$ f(){ return -1; }; f
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 23 February 2009 08:48:32 Chet Ramey wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
related to option parsing has broken that
$
Mike Frysinger wrote:
Are filenames beginning with a `-' useless because `rm' interprets
them as option arguments when, for instance, they're generated by the
expansion of `*'? Is `rm' broken for interpreting them as options?
I mean, there's no real difference between the two cases. If you
On Monday 23 February 2009 15:16:21 Chet Ramey wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
Are filenames beginning with a `-' useless because `rm' interprets
them as option arguments when, for instance, they're generated by the
expansion of `*'? Is `rm' broken for interpreting them as options?
I mean,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Chet Ramey on 2/23/2009 1:16 PM:
OK. Let me try to explain how the current behavior derives from Posix.
It falls under two parts of the standard (section 1.4):
1. Unless otherwise stated in the utility description, when given an
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
to option parsing has broken that
$ f(){ return -1; }; f
-bash: return: -1: invalid option
return: usage: return [n]
POSIX states that the
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
to option parsing has broken that
$ f(){ return -1; }; f
-bash:
On Monday 23 February 2009 00:25:57 Jon Seymour wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
related to
11 matches
Mail list logo