Instead of
$ zz /jidanni_backups/da
Display all 113 possibilities? (y or n) n
and then finally showing
$ zz /jidanni_backups/dan_home_bkp
how about doing the expansion first, so entering
$ zz /jidanni_backups/da would then change into
$ zz /jidanni_backups/dan_home_bkp with below it the
On 7/31/20 7:27 PM, Ángel wrote:
> On 2020-07-31 at 10:13 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to have to test some more. When I tried it, all the shells
>> died.
>> (I did send the SIGHUP from another terminal.) I was using ksh93 as
>> the parent and bash-5.0.18 as the interactive bash,
On 7/31/20 10:04 AM, Ayappan P2 wrote:
> We are passing SIGHUP from another terminal ( not from the terminal which
> has the interactive bash shell) . The terminal which has the interactive
> bash closes immediately.
>
> The scenario is we just open two terminals. In one terminal , just invoke
>
On 8/2/20 4:01 AM, Oğuz wrote:
> $ set -u
> $ unset foo bar
> $ typeset -i foo bar
> $
> $ foo+=foo+1
> $
> $ foo+=bar+1
> bash: bar: unbound variable
>
> Only referencing `bar' triggers the _unbound variable_ error, it makes
> sense that the name being assigned
On 8/2/20 3:34 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>>> % bash -c 'set -u; typeset -i v; v+=1; printf "<%s>\\n" "$v"'
>>> <1>
>>> % ksh -c 'set -u; typeset -i v; v+=1; printf "<%s>\\n" "$v"'
>>> <1>
>>> % zsh -c 'set -u; typeset -i v; v+=1; printf "<%s>\\n" "$v"'
>>> <1>
>
> ...which contrasts with the
On 8/1/20 8:47 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> let v+=1 # Line 18, Once line 11 is uncommented, Bash fails here
>
> I haven't seen the code for arithmetic expansion, but I assume it
> treats v+=1 as morally equivalent to v=${v}+1 (à la C99). Thus there
> *is* an expansion, which fails under set
On 8/1/20 2:48 PM, Kristof Burek wrote:
> Bash Version: 5.0
> Patch Level: 3
> Release Status: release
>
> (Machine is a Raspberry Pi running Raspbian "Buster")
>
> Description:
> After set -u in a script: when x has not yet been bound to a value,
> I would expect the
On 7/31/20 11:26 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>>> "If EDITOR is not set, bashbug attempts to locate a number of
>>> alternative editors, including emacs, and defaults to vi."
>>>
>>> The word "defaults" there implies that vi is the preferred autolocated
>>> editor, but the intention is to have it the
However,
> In arithmetic evaluation context, if a variable for which the integer
attribute is set appears at the LHS of an assignment operator, it shouldn't
be expanded.
would be a reasonable feature request I guess.
--
Oğuz
2 Ağustos 2020 Pazar tarihinde Lawrence Velázquez yazdı:
> > On Aug 2, 2020, at 2:51 AM, Oğuz wrote:
> >
> > `u' has no members, so there's nothing to expand. If you use `${u[0]}'
> for
> > example, you'll see an error, I think how bash and ksh behave is
> perfectly
> > reasonable.
>
> Agreed.
> On Aug 2, 2020, at 2:51 AM, Oğuz wrote:
>
> `u' has no members, so there's nothing to expand. If you use `${u[0]}' for
> example, you'll see an error, I think how bash and ksh behave is perfectly
> reasonable.
Agreed. Their behavior logically follows from POSIX's carveout for $@.
>> % bash
2 Ağustos 2020 Pazar tarihinde Lawrence Velázquez yazdı:
> > On Aug 1, 2020, at 8:47 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> >
> > Presumably none of these shells implements u+=(t) as u=("${u[@]}" t).
>
> Granted, they do disagree on ${u[@]}.
>
> % bash -c 'set -u; unset u; u=("${u[@]}" t); typeset -p
12 matches
Mail list logo
