On 8/23/25 11:40 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 00:15, Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu <mailto:chet.ra...@case.edu>> wrote:No different than evaluating a variable value in an expression as an expression.In other languages, binding and assignment are clearly different operations, where this would clearly NOT be "no different".
Oh? int x = 0; In any event, the comment you quoted was an answer to your "looks like infinite recursion."
> I would rather that assignment modifier flags (-i, -l, -u, -r}
simply be
> ignored when binding.
I'm sure you would, but that's neither backwards compatible nor compatible
with other shells (ksh93, mksh, even zsh) that impletment declare/typeset.
In respect of -l, -u and -r, that's fair comment, so let's set those aside
and focus on binding with -i, where the old behaviour was to fail silently.
Why would you ignore -i, since it has the same backwards compatibility issues as the others? $ ksh -c 'typeset -i x=3+4 ; echo $x' 7 Or are you only considering the -in case, where the issue was that a value that expanded to a variable name that wasn't a valid nameref didn't generate an error message? If you are, then make your reasoning explicit. Or are you considering $ ./bash -c 'x=3+7; typeset -i x; echo $x' 3+7 and suggesting that bash perform arithmetic evaluation on an existing value when setting the integer attribute (which would actually be compatible with other shells), and echo `10'?
Ignoring -i when binding (only applying it when assigning) would seem like a reasonable backwards-compatible extension,
It's not backwareds compatible, but you know that. Maybe you could give
an example of what you mean.
--
``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
