On 12/11/23 7:49 AM, Zachary Santer wrote:
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 3:56 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote:Come on. Bash (and POSIX) define arithmetic in terms of how C does it, and that is an invalid C integer constant. It's not even shell-specific syntax like base#number; it's something that C defines. Is it worth it trying to be helpful, or is it better to follow the standard you say you do?Just so everyone's clear: Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]: Machine: x86_64 OS: msys Compiler: gcc Compilation CFLAGS: -march=nocona -msahf -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -D_STATIC_BUILD uname output: MINGW64_NT-10.0-19045 Zack2021HPPavilion 3.4.10.x86_64 2023-11-30 06:09 UTC x86_64 Msys Machine Type: x86_64-pc-msys Bash Version: 5.2 Patch Level: 21 Release Status: release $ printf '%s\n' "$(( 0x ))"; 0 In my opinion, it would be better to have this not treated as valid, for the same reason that 10# is no longer treated as valid. And it would probably do less script-breaking than invalidating 10# did.
It's still accepted in the devel branch, unless STRICT_ARITH_PARSING is defined. There was a discussion about it in 2022: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2022-07/msg00045.html in the context of the bash arithmetic parser trying to be too helpful. It's clearly invalid, and no one should be using it. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
