Hallo,
in playing around with digital keys (integers) which have a simple
arithmetic check property, I encountered problemsusing bash's arithmetic
expansion, when ever the used digital substrings have leading zeros. The
problem shows up already for the simplest operations, namely converting
You've already answered it, thank you. I didn't know that [:, [., [= were
special *sequences*, I guess I overlooked that part. Thanks again for
taking time to explain it in detail, I'm grateful
9 Kasım 2019 Cumartesi tarihinde Robert Elz yazdı:
> Date:Sat, 9 Nov 2019 07:35:16 +0300
In the arithmetic context, leading zeroes signify an octal base. Had you
used an 8 or 9, you would have gotten a message like:
bash: 08: value too great for base (error token is "08")
when trying: echo $((08))
So it's not a bug, it's a feature; make sure your base-10 numbers don't
have leading
FWIW, Andreas's description really was sufficient...
Date:Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:39:52 +0100
From:Davide Brini
Message-ID: <1mi5ud-1ifip305pl-00f...@mail.gmx.com>
| If you want to force base 10 interpretation (remember that leading 0 mean
| octal in arithmetic context), you need to explicitly tell bash:
|
| $ echo
Date:Sat, 9 Nov 2019 07:35:16 +0300
From:=?UTF-8?B?T8SfdXo=?=
Message-ID:
| is correct, as "foo" does not contain a ']' which would be required
| > to match there (quoting the ':' means there is no character class,
| > hence we have instead (the negation of)
Date:Sat, 09 Nov 2019 06:46:05 -0800
From:L A Walsh
Message-ID: <5dc6d12d.6040...@tlinx.org>
| Is this really what the standard says,
Yes, I used cut (and then some line length/wrappoing reformatting)
| because '\\' is not a character, but 2 characters.
In sh,
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:52:56 +0100, Joern Knoll wrote:
> [tplx99]:/the/knoll > echo $((0123))
> 83
> [tplx99]:/the/knoll > echo $((123))
> 123
> [tplx99]:/the/knoll > echo $((01234))
> 668
> [tplx99]:/the/knoll > echo $((1234))
> 1234
If you want to force base 10 interpretation (remember that
On 2019/11/09 04:49, Robert Elz wrote:
> There's also
>
> The special characters '.', '*', '[', and '\\'
> (, , , and ,
> respectively) shall lose their special meaning within a bracket
> expression.
>
Is this really what the standard says, because '\\' is not a
On Nov 09 2019, L A Walsh wrote:
> On 2019/11/09 04:49, Robert Elz wrote:
>> There's also
>>
>> The special characters '.', '*', '[', and '\\'
>> (, , , and ,
>> respectively) shall lose their special meaning within a bracket
>> expression.
>>
>
> Is this really what
10 matches
Mail list logo
