On Friday, April 5, 2013 9:59:11 PM UTC+2, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 4/4/13 7:53 AM, reha...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Ubuntu 12.10, Bash 4.2.37
With the following inputrc ([Ctrl-RightArrow] mapped to menu-complete):
set show-all-if-ambiguous on
\e[1;5C: menu-complete
I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which interpretation is
correct. Assuming it's unspecified.
Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which makes me
think this test should say no:
x=\\x; if [[ x == $x ]]; then echo yes; else echo no; fi
bash: yes
On 04/06/2013 02:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which interpretation is
correct. Assuming it's unspecified.
Correct - POSIX does not specify [[ at all, so any behavior inside [[ is
unspecified.
However, ksh93 (AJM 93v- 2013-03-17) is unique
On 2013-04-06 07:01, Eric Blake wrote:
bb: no
jsh: no
I haven't heard of these two, but they are also bugs.
I assume bb is busybox ash.
Chris
pgppwY6f9jNaE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Saturday, April 06, 2013 09:24:52 PM Chris Down wrote:
On 2013-04-06 07:01, Eric Blake wrote:
bb: no
jsh: no
I haven't heard of these two, but they are also bugs.
I assume bb is busybox ash.
Chris
It's typically a symlink to busybox yes, which calls the shell. jsh is the
On 4/5/13 5:19 PM, reha...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like the choice between the completion mechanism I used in my first
post (manually cycling through completion options), and the completion
mechanism in this post (typing extra characters onto the common prefix and
then completing again).
On 4/6/13 4:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which interpretation is
correct. Assuming it's unspecified.
Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which makes me
think this test should say no:
x=\\x; if [[ x == $x ]];
On 3/30/13 5:06 AM, Marcel (Felix) Giannelia wrote:
Yeah, discovered set -o physical just after posting, and am considering
adopting it... but on the other hand, I'm not so sure the facade
behaviour has to be all that elaborate. For instance, if I give you the
paths '/path/to/directory' and
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 4/6/13 4:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which interpretation is
correct. Assuming it's unspecified.
Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which makes me
think this test should say
On 4/6/13 9:59 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
In bash, the expansion differs when in [[ ... ]]:
$ x=\\x; if [[ x == $x ]]; then echo yes; else echo no; fi
yes
$ x=\\x; if [ x == $x ]; then echo yes; else echo no; fi
no
OK. The [[ conditional command does pattern matching. The [ (test)
On Saturday, April 06, 2013 09:37:44 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
On 4/6/13 4:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which
interpretation is
correct. Assuming it's unspecified.
Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which makes me
11 matches
Mail list logo
