On 27/01/2021 07:38, pepa65 wrote:
On 27/01/2021 14.30, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
Note that declare -p BASH_VERSION would report the version of bash that
you're currently running interactively.
$ declare -p BASH_VERSION
declare -- BASH_VERSION="5.0.17(1)-release"
Does declare -p GLOBIGNORE
On 27/01/2021 14.30, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
> Note that declare -p BASH_VERSION would report the version of bash that
> you're currently running interactively.
$ declare -p BASH_VERSION
declare -- BASH_VERSION="5.0.17(1)-release"
> Does declare -p GLOBIGNORE show that the variable is set?
On 27/01/2021 06:50, pepa65 wrote:
On 27/01/2021 04.00, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1)
in Ubuntu 20.04:-
$ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
. .. a .b
$ cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS \n \l
$ bash --version
GNU
On 27/01/2021 12.57, Koichi Murase wrote:
> There was already a discussion to use ${ command } for no-fork command
> substitutions as ksh does.
I would find that syntax very confusing, as ${var} is used to access
variables, so then only the starting space (and the ending semicolon)
would
On 27/01/2021 04.00, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
> One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1)
> in Ubuntu 20.04:-
>
> $ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
> . .. a .b
$ cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS \n \l
$ bash --version
GNU bash, version
2021年1月27日(水) 12:15 Clark Wang :
> For example, we can use ${( ... )} which is now wrong syntax.
There was already a discussion to use ${ command } for no-fork command
substitutions as ksh does.
> From https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-bash/2020-05/msg00077.html
>
> > According to Eli
What's wrong with printing an `x' at the end and removing it later?
--
Oğuz
$(( is math output as ((
<( and >( keep data
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 05:15 Clark Wang wrote:
> For example, we can use ${( ... )} which is now wrong syntax.
>
> $ v=${( command ... )}
> bash: ${( command ... )}: bad substitution
>
For example, we can use ${( ... )} which is now wrong syntax.
$ v=${( command ... )}
bash: ${( command ... )}: bad substitution
On 2021/01/26 09:08, Chet Ramey wrote:
That's the real question: whether or not `.' should match @(?|.?), even
when dotglob is enabled (and yes, both patterns have to be in there). There
isn't really any other. Since it doesn't match ? when dotglob is enabled,
there's an obvious inconsistency
On 1/26/21 4:00 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1) in
Ubuntu 20.04:-
$ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
. .. a .b
Note that '.' is said to be among the pathnames matched. I don't see how
this can possibly be the
On 26/01/2021 21:13, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 1/26/21 4:00 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1)
in Ubuntu 20.04:-
$ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
. .. a .b
Note that '.' is said to be among the pathnames matched. I
On 26/01/2021 20:49, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 1/26/21 3:27 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
I'm still worried about some of the curious results shown by your
original post but I haven't had a chance to test the same platforms yet.
Don't be. CentOS is running a version of bash-4.2 (without even all
On 1/26/21 2:34 PM, gregrwm wrote:
you're calling .. an explicit match to .?
Yes: the leading `.' is explicitly included.
i'd interpret explicit match to mean .. wouldn't match anything other than
itself (notwithstanding it's been otherwise for over a decade)
That's not a glob pattern.
On 1/26/21 3:27 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
I'm still worried about some of the curious results shown by your original
post but I haven't had a chance to test the same platforms yet.
Don't be. CentOS is running a version of bash-4.2 (without even all of the
patches applied); that version
On 26/01/2021 19:34, gregrwm wrote:
. and .. are excluded from @(?|.?) in
bash 4.2.46(2)-release (CentOS 7.8), but are included in
bash 4.4.19(1)-release (CentOS 8.2) and
bash 5.0.17(1)-release (Ubuntu 20.04/focal).
According to the manual, "[t]he
>
> > . and .. are excluded from @(?|.?) in
> > bash 4.2.46(2)-release (CentOS 7.8), but are included in
> > bash 4.4.19(1)-release (CentOS 8.2) and
> > bash 5.0.17(1)-release (Ubuntu 20.04/focal).
>
According to the manual, "[t]he filenames ‘.’ and ‘..’ must
On 1/25/21 4:36 PM, gregrwm wrote:
Bash Version: 5.0
Patch Level: 17
Release Status: release
Description:
. and .. are excluded from @(?|.?) in
bash 4.2.46(2)-release (CentOS 7.8), but are included in
bash 4.4.19(1)-release (CentOS 8.2) and
bash
On 26/01/2021 13:04, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
On Jan 26, 2021, at 12:51 AM, ""
wrote:
On 25/01/2021 21:36, gregrwm wrote:
is this change in functionality a regression, a "fix", or a new
feature?
is there any option to exclude them?
in all 3, .. is included in .?
On 1/26/21 7:33 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
This was reported for Debian in https://bugs.debian.org/968703 for the
interactive Python interpreter, however I also see it with gdb, e.g. trying to
run ls in gdb. readline 8.1 is in use.
This one has been around ever since the callback code came in
2021年1月26日(火) 20:34 Matthias Klose :
> This was reported for Debian in https://bugs.debian.org/968703 for the
> interactive Python interpreter,
> [...]
> just hitting return in interactive mode triggers the segfault.
Reduced-Case:
$ cat .inputrc
"\ra": self-insert
$ python3
Python 3.7.7
> On Jan 26, 2021, at 12:51 AM, ""
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/01/2021 21:36, gregrwm wrote:
>>
>> is this change in functionality a regression, a "fix", or a new
>> feature?
>> is there any option to exclude them?
>> in all 3, .. is included in .?
>
> This seems to be as
This was reported for Debian in https://bugs.debian.org/968703 for the
interactive Python interpreter, however I also see it with gdb, e.g. trying to
run ls in gdb. readline 8.1 is in use.
$ cat .inputrc
# Based on Brendan Miller's initial bash .inputrc
# INSTALL
# to install, rename this file to
25 Ocak 2021 Pazartesi tarihinde Chet Ramey yazdı:
> On 1/25/21 12:58 PM, Oğuz wrote:
>
> I rarely use eval, but when I do, it works just fine.
>>
>
> Someone should create a meme with this text superimposed on an image of the
> Dos Equis most interesting man in the world.
>
Heh. Made it my
24 matches
Mail list logo
