On Tue, Mar 19, 2024, at 11:18 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> As such, I would expect that
> $ declare -A assoc_2=( "${assoc_1[@]@k}" )
> would create assoc_2 as a duplicate of assoc_1. However, we see that
> the entire expansion becomes the key for a single array element, with
> its value being the
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:18 PM Zachary Santer wrote:
>
> Repeat-By:
>
> $ declare -A assoc_1=( [key 0]='value 0' [key 1]='value 1' [key
> 2]='value 2' [key 3]='value 3' )
> $ unset assoc_2
> $ declare -A assoc_2
> $ printf '|%s|\n' "${assoc_1[*]@k}"
> |key 2 value 2 key 3 value 3 key 0 value 0
On 3/18/24 12:41, Chet Ramey wrote:
I'm not sure what you're using, but that was not my experience on
macOS.
I am using Fedora 39 (the current version) on x86-64. That could explain
our differing experiences.
I see several diagnostics (mostly diff output) with "make check" on
Fedora 39.
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: msys
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -march=nocona -msahf -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe
-D_STATIC_BUILD
uname output: MINGW64_NT-10.0-19045 Zack2021HPPavilion 3.4.10.x86_64
2024-02-10 08:39 UTC x86_64 Msys
Machine
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 6:26 PM Zachary Santer wrote:
>
> I guess, in bash 5.1+, it could pass
> "${assoc[*]@K}"
> and then the receiving end could
> eval "assoc=( ${assoc_message} )"
> if I wanted to avoid declaring the associative array anew.
If I wanted to duplicate an indexed array, however,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:24:34PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 3/19/24 11:50 AM, Mike Jonkmans wrote:
>
> > > Yes. There is one thing missing: the transformation should expand to a
> > > `declare' command when applied to a local variable at the current scope,
> > > even if there are no
On 3/19/24 11:50 AM, Mike Jonkmans wrote:
Yes. There is one thing missing: the transformation should expand to a
`declare' command when applied to a local variable at the current scope,
even if there are no attributes to be displayed. Agreed?
I am less convinced about outputting a `-g' for a
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:19:55PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 3/14/24 8:57 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 3:43 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> > >
> > > In fact, before 2020, local -p with no name arguments behaved the same as
> > > local without arguments, which just printed
