Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 12:02:41PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
Bash *is* the linux
shell. It's being adopted elsewhere, but it seems to have first grown
in use in the linux community.
Bash predates Linux. Bash was first released in 1989. Linux wasn't
released until
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 12:02:41PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> Bash *is* the linux
> shell. It's being adopted elsewhere, but it seems to have first grown
> in use in the linux community.
Bash predates Linux. Bash was first released in 1989. Linux wasn't
released until 1991.
Bash is the GNU
Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 07:01:23AM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
George wrote:
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 16:16 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
George wrote:
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:59 +0700, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote:
On 05/06/2560 15:52, George
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:20:03AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
[...]
> (OK, in reality, I am not taking any of this seriously. This entire
> proposal and discussion are like some bizarre fantasy land to me. Bash
> is a SHELL, for god's sake. Not a serious programming language. Even
> serious
On 06/06/2560 21:20, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Scripts that can only *run* in a UTF-8 encoding-locale are a bad idea.
Even currently, when functions in a bash script are beyond ASCII, they
can still be run anywhere. I would imagine it would be the same when
variable names are also allowed to be in
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 07:01:23AM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> George wrote:
> >On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 16:16 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> >>George wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:59 +0700, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote:
> On 05/06/2560 15:52, George wrote:
> >there's not a reliable
George wrote:
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 16:16 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
George wrote:
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:59 +0700, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote:
On 05/06/2560 15:52, George wrote:
there's not a reliable mechanism in place to run a script in a
locale whose character encoding doesn't match
On 06/06/2560 14:37, George wrote:
> Broadly speaking I think the approach taken in Eduardo's patch
> (interpreting the byte sequence according to the rules of its character
> encoding) is better than the approach taken in current versions of Bash
> (letting 0x80-0xFF slide through the parser) -
On 06/06/2560 14:37, George wrote:
> As it stands, it's possible in Bash to use bytes in the 0x80-0xFF range as
> part of function names, for instance, because the Bash parser treats all of
> these byte values as valid "word" characters. This makes the Bash parser
> fairly "encoding neutral",
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 16:16 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> George wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:59 +0700, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 05/06/2560 15:52, George wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > there's not a reliable mechanism in place to run a script in a locale
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
