btw u just need a two teee's there one l.int local int ome g.int for with -g and the setting for non g may not be a function
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 22:28 L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote: > > > On 2022/02/03 11:02, Chet Ramey wrote: > > On 2/2/22 10:18 PM, Robert Elz wrote: > > > >> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:18:08 -0800 > >> From: L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> > >> Message-ID: <61fb2d50.7010...@tlinx.org> > >> > >> | My posix non-conformance issue has to do with bash not starting > with > >> | aliases enabled by default in all default invocations. > >> > >> If you're using aliases in scripts, then just stop doing that. > >> There's no need for it, it just makes your script harder to > >> follow. Simply expand any aliases you"d use interactively, > >> and you will no longer care about this. > >> > > > > There's no problem with using aliases in private scripts you write for > your > > own purposes. > Going against the POSIX standard in enabling aliases on startup would be no > problem if it was in your private shell for your own purposes... > > If you want to impose some personal style you find easier to > > read, so be it. Even advocating for that style is ok, if you don't > expect to be taken seriously unless you provide evidence of concrete > benefits. > > > --- > If you want to impose your personal bash startup options on the general > shell used by default on most systems, so be it. But please don't > expect to be taken seriously when you arbitrarily disable default > posix options at startup unless you provide evidence of concrete benefits. > > In a similar way when one does a 'read var < fn' and you decide to add > a warning if 'fn' ended with a binary '0', that would be fine if it only > affected > you, but you added the warning claiming it was solving some problem > complained about > by some users. When I asked for concrete evidence of benefits or the > large number > of users askign for that, I was attacked. Yet you ask to be taken > seriously when > you implement changes that no one had asked for on bug-bash. > > > The issue is expecting others to understand or be able to help with > scripts > > written in that style, or expect them to invest time learning it. That's > > just not reasonable. > > If you are claiming it takes them significant time to learn what: > > > shopt -s expand_aliases; alias int='declare -i ' > means, How do you expect them to learn shell basics from 'man bash'? > > More than one person has commented the level of clarity of bash > documentation. > > I've have yet to find someone who doesn't understand what > 'int var=1' means. > > Documentation that has confused more than one poster on this list > is hardly a standard one should aspire to. It is, at best, 'terse'. > > versus my alias usage that attempts to improve clarity. > > > > >