Paul Jarc wrote:
Matthew Woehlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
[ -n $foo -a -n $bar ]
is not the expression to test whether both $foo and $bar are
non-empty, as it would fail for some specific values of $foo or
$bar (try it when $foo contains = for instance).
Huh? Why
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i486
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i486'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i486-pc-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='p$
uname output: Linux hal 2.6.20-16-generic #2
Miguel Ángel wrote:
Evaluating expressions like:
[ true -a false ] ; echo $?
always returns 0 (true), doesn't mind if I change true for false or
viceversa.
In the case of the test operator (aka '[ expr ]') use of true and
false as you have done are strings and not boolean expressions and
not
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:07:56PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
[...]
following. These are the same.
[ foo -a bar ]
[ -n foo -a -n bar ]
This is defined by standard by the number of arguments.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/test.html
[...]
And it should be
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
And it should be noted (and it's noted as well in the page
you're refering to) that while the above is true for strings
such as foo and bar, it is not true in the general case.
[ -n $foo -a -n $bar ]
is not the expression to test whether both $foo and $bar are
Matthew Woehlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
[ -n $foo -a -n $bar ]
is not the expression to test whether both $foo and $bar are
non-empty, as it would fail for some specific values of $foo or
$bar (try it when $foo contains = for instance).
Huh? Why would having an '='
