I am seeing this potential regression on code checked out from
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/bash.git at version ec8113b:
$ ./configure
$ make
$ echo "$BASH_VERSION"
5.2.15(1)-release
$ declare -A associative_array=([key]=~/Desktop)
$ ls -d "${associative_array[key]}"
ls: cannot access
2023年2月7日(火) 0:40 Chet Ramey :
> On 2/4/23 8:02 PM, Koichi Murase wrote:
> > In the previous time that I raised the discussion about ``no-argument
> > return in trap handlers'', I directly posted an email to the mailing
> > list [1]. Fortunately, I got about ten replies but later,
> >
This is tricky. The documentation is
If NAME is '-', the set of shell options is made
local to the function in which 'local' is invoked: shell options
changed using the 'set' builtin inside the function are restored to
their original values when the function returns.
It does
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:18:30AM -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> The behavior of bash appears to be is "future changes in shell options
> using the 'set' builtin inside the current function invocation are
> restored to their prior values when the function returns".
Perhaps, the wording of the
On 2/4/23 8:02 PM, Koichi Murase wrote:
In the previous time that I raised the discussion about ``no-argument
return in trap handlers'', I directly posted an email to the mailing
list [1]. Fortunately, I got about ten replies but later,
unfortunately, it was finally forgotten without any
Before this patch, running local - a second time in the same scope
would overwrite the previously saved options:
a () { local -; set -C; echo "2: $-"; local -; set -u; echo "3: $-" ;}
echo "1: $-" # 1: himBHs
a # 2: himBCHs
# 3: himuBCHs
echo "4: $-" #
On 2/6/23 7:33 AM, Marco wrote:
I am seeing this potential regression on code checked out from
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/bash.git at version ec8113b:
$ ./configure
$ make
$ echo "$BASH_VERSION"
5.2.15(1)-release
$ declare -A associative_array=([key]=~/Desktop)
$ ls -d
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 07:17, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 1/28/23 5:56 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
> > Firstly, let's just leave aside "POSIX requires this" for a bit.
> Be that as it may, POSIX exists and this is a requirement. It's also how
> other shells behave.
>
Of course. I'm only contemplating
