Re: why not update bash syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility?

2019-02-15 Thread Vlad Vladov
Hi, thanks for a quick response. I makes sense now. Did not think about the calls with =, my bad. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:26 AM Vlad Vladov wrote: > Hi, > I think bash is great and more people should use it. However, it has a bit > more picky syntax than many other modern languages and shell

Re: why not update bash syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility?

2019-02-15 Thread John McKown
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:51 AM Chet Ramey wrote: > On 2/15/19 10:26 AM, Vlad Vladov wrote: > > Hi, > > I think bash is great and more people should use it. However, it has a > bit > > more picky syntax than many other modern languages and shell scripts. For > > example assigning a var requires

Re: why not update bash syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility?

2019-02-15 Thread Eric Blake
On 2/15/19 9:26 AM, Vlad Vladov wrote: > Hi, > I think bash is great and more people should use it. However, it has a bit > more picky syntax than many other modern languages and shell scripts. For > example assigning a var requires having no spaces between = and var and > assignment. I think this

Re: why not update bash syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility?

2019-02-15 Thread Chet Ramey
On 2/15/19 10:26 AM, Vlad Vladov wrote: > Hi, > I think bash is great and more people should use it. However, it has a bit > more picky syntax than many other modern languages and shell scripts. For > example assigning a var requires having no spaces between = and var and > assignment. I think

why not update bash syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility?

2019-02-15 Thread Vlad Vladov
Hi, I think bash is great and more people should use it. However, it has a bit more picky syntax than many other modern languages and shell scripts. For example assigning a var requires having no spaces between = and var and assignment. I think this kind of thing can be fixed while still