On 8/10/11 10:59 PM, Clark J. Wang wrote:
How can people write stable scripts in an enironment of constant change?
This is creating the exact opposite of what POSIX is supposed to help!
I found the similar problem. Bash has changed a lot since 2.05b which is the
1st version of bash I've
Chet Ramey wrote:
Yes. It's a case of not saving and restoring enough state across
possibly-
recursive calls to the shell parser. (The assignment statement is the
key
in this case.)
So, I compared subst.c files from bash-4.1-9 and bash-4.2-10 and was
able
to build a patch that it
On 08/10/2011 03:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is this
construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
According to POSIX, this construction should be parsed as an arithmetic
substitution $(()) where the expression is (expr), if at all
On 8/10/11 5:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
Yes. It's a case of not saving and restoring enough state across
possibly-
recursive calls to the shell parser. (The assignment statement is the
key
in this case.)
So, I compared subst.c files from bash-4.1-9 and
Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/10/2011 03:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is this
construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
According to POSIX, this construction should be parsed as an arithmetic
substitution $(()) where the expression is
I thought the $( ) was necessary to make the inner (()) an arithmetic
expression... Does it execute in a sub process?
No, $( ) is for process substitution, $(( )) is for an arithmetic context.
I normally (in Bash), use (( )) outside the whole expression since it
gives me complete freedom of
On 8/10/11 8:57 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is
this construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
What does `break' mean? It's already written in a manner more
confusing and obscure than
On 8/10/11 8:44 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
It sounded to me like $(( )) would be translated into $( () ),
turning off arithmetic expansion. Did I read that incorrectly?
Yes. You missed the content of the resolution and changed language
in the standard:
The syntax
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Linda Walsh b...@tlinx.org wrote:
Bash is becoming very unstable -- programs that work in 3.1 won't
necessarily work in 3.2, those in 3.2 aren't compat with 4.0, 4.0 is
different than 4.1, and now 4.2 is different than 4.1.
How can people write stable
