On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Linda Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote: > > > > Pierre Gaston wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Linda Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Re: BashFAQ/006: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/006 >>> Pierre Gaston wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Linda: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> please show quote the section >>>>> that shows using an variable that holds the name of an array to be used >>>>> (and assigned to).... else .. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The proof is in the faq, you could have found it if you were not busy >>>> trolling the list. >>>> >>> >>> ==== >>> Guess this was not possible. The FAQ covers indirect, >>> it covers arrays, but I see no place where it covers the combination. >>> If you see such, then quote it. Don't just wave your arms around >>> making unsubstantiated claims or accusations. >>> >>> I didn't ask for the impossible -- just a quote. >>> >>> Apparently that was too much to ask for, so you call me a troll >>> ....ya, right. Who's the troll? >>> >> >> # Bash -- trick #1. Seems to work in bash 2 and up. >> realarray=(...) ref=realarray; index=2 >> tmp="$ref[$index]" >> echo "${!tmp}" # gives array element [2] >> > > ---- > > Ok I'll give you credit for, being serious in believing the page answered > my qustion.... > > But my question was: what was the syntax to do: to use an > indirect array reference directly to reference members of the array, as > indicated in my failed example: > >> echo ${#${!name}[*]} > > bash: ${#${!name}[*]}: bad substitution > # note that ${#<arrname>[*(or @)]} will give you the num elements in > the array. I wanted to sub in '${!var} for 'arrname' in order to > > --- > Michael Witten, immediate got the issues I was trying to avoid and > responded: > > It's probably what you're trying to avoid, but you'll probably have to > construct and then eval the right code by hand: > > $(eval "echo \${#$name[*]}") > ---- > I was trying to avoid any workaround that used > one or more multiple common workarounds like evals and/or > use of tmp vars... I.e. I saw no such syntax. > > As others confirmed: such syntax is NOT > possible in the current bash. It was in the context of that, when you > indicated there was an answer to my > 'how to do syntax for xxyz' > > on the page in question and thus my need to have > you explain what you meant (via a quote showing the > use of such). > > I now understand that you thought such a response would suffice. > Perhaps you also understand > why that's not what I was looking for. > > *peace* > linda
l understood a while ago, now I'll just stop feeding the troll.
