> On Dec 27, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Chet Ramey via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> wrote:
>
> On 12/27/23 11:26 AM, Andrew Pennebaker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> wrote:
>> Many programs depend on hashmaps in order to work.
>> awk is not an answer.
>> The lack of hashmaps forces
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023, Andrew Pennebaker <
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simply acknowledging bash associative array syntax, would instantly
> improve the scalability of sh scripts.
>
.. in theory. Other shells would have to implement it first. Considering
some of them don't
On 12/27/23 11:26 AM, Andrew Pennebaker via austin-group-l at The Open
Group wrote:
Many programs depend on hashmaps in order to work.
awk is not an answer.
The lack of hashmaps forces people to use less efficient algorithms, such
as linear search.
The bash family implements it. Simply
Many programs depend on hashmaps in order to work.
awk is not an answer.
The lack of hashmaps forces people to use less efficient algorithms, such
as linear search.
The bash family implements it. Simply acknowledging bash associative array
syntax, would instantly improve the scalability of sh
On Wednesday, December 27, 2023, Andrew Pennebaker via austin-group-l at
The Open Group wrote:
> I am currently using dynamically named variables in order to implement
> logical hashmaps in pure, POSIX sh.
>
Why? The standard hashmap language is AWK and it's available on every
POSIX-compliant
Hi,
I am currently using dynamically named variables in order to implement
logical hashmaps in pure, POSIX sh. The entries share a common, application
specific prefix to mitigate collisions with other environment variables.
However, the hacky syntax I am using for this, involves eval commands.
