Op 25-09-16 om 22:57 schreef Martijn Dekker: > And indeed your interpretation does not apply to something like > "[ ! -e /tmp ]": > > $ [ -e /tmp ]; echo $? > 0 > $ [ ! -e /tmp ]; echo $? > 1 > > However, the supposed synonym -a acts differently: > > $ [ -a /tmp ]; echo $? > 0 > $ [ ! -a /tmp ]; echo $? > 0
Which also makes sense now that I think about it, since -a means "and" so it tests for the non-emptiness of both strings. Bug report withdrawn. Sorry for the noise, - M.
