On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Lawrence Velázquez writes:
>> Did you mean to say that ${#FOO[*]} causes an error? Because
>> ${FOO[*]} does not, a la $*:
>
> The case that matters for me is the Bash that ships with "Oracle Linux".
> Which turns out to be version
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:48:07PM -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Lawrence Velázquez writes:
> > Did you mean to say that ${#FOO[*]} causes an error? Because
> > ${FOO[*]} does not, a la $*:
>
> The case that matters for me is the Bash that ships with "Oracle Linux".
> Which turns out to be
Lawrence Velázquez writes:
> Did you mean to say that ${#FOO[*]} causes an error? Because
> ${FOO[*]} does not, a la $*:
The case that matters for me is the Bash that ships with "Oracle Linux".
Which turns out to be version 4.2.46(2) from 2011, which is a lot older
than I would expect. But it
On 12/21/21 6:48 PM, fatipa...@tutanota.com wrote:
If you want to read about the format specifiers, the first link from
Lawrence's message is authoritative.
Is printf an external program to bash? In this age, one uses a simple
search on a manual rather
than reading the 200 pages.
--
Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox.
Dec 21, 2021, 23:35 by chet.ra...@case.edu:
> On 12/21/21 6:12 PM, fatiparty--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
> SHell wrote:
>
>> It is still something that needs fixing. Cannot see that it is described in
>> the bash
On 12/21/21 6:12 PM, fatiparty--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell wrote:
It is still something that needs fixing. Cannot see that it is described in
the bash manual. No mention of %s %d %o and related things. Certainly not in
the link you included.
It's not a bug. There
Dec 21, 2021, 22:51 by v...@larryv.me:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, at 5:40 PM, fatiparty--- via Bug reports for the GNU
> Bourne Again SHell wrote:
>
>> Have tried to read some information about the format specifier for
>> printf, particularly the width, precision and left justification for
>> %s,
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, at 5:40 PM, fatiparty--- via Bug reports for the GNU
Bourne Again SHell wrote:
> Have tried to read some information about the format specifier for
> printf, particularly the width, precision and left justification for
> %s, but could not find any.
Have tried to read some information about the format specifier for printf,
particularly the width, precision and left justification for %s, but could not
find any.
