On Jan 27, 10:54 am, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan wrote:
> > I found the behaviour of the function below is a little bit odd. Appreciate
> > if someone can share his/her knowledge regarding the behaviour.
>
> > The output of the script will be:
>
> >
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan wrote:
> I found the behaviour of the function below is a little bit odd. Appreciate
> if someone can share his/her knowledge regarding the behaviour.
>
> The output of the script will be:
>
> sharuzza...@debian:~$ ./case1.sh
> Nice behaviour,
>
> S
On 27.01.2010 13:49, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found the behaviour of the function below is a little bit odd. Appreciate
> if someone can share his/her knowledge regarding the behaviour.
>
> The output of the script will be:
>
> sharuzza...@debian:~$ ./case1.sh
> Nice behaviour
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 03:07:40PM +0200, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan
> wrote:
> > Somehow, the backtick for foo() execute the function, echoing the correct
> > output, but fails to set the variable $gang to the correct value. Because of
> > tha
Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan a écrit :
>
> Somehow, the backtick for foo() execute the function, echoing the correct
> output, but fails to set the variable $gang to the correct value.
The variable is set, but in a different sub shell. backticks fork a sub shell.
By the way $( ) is preferred to back
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found the behaviour of the function below is a little bit odd. Appreciate
> if someone can share his/her knowledge regarding the behaviour.
>
> The output of the script will be:
>
> sharuzza...@debian:~$ ./case1.sh
> Nice
