Richard Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Are you sure this isn't comparable? After all, in both cases, the user has > submitted something to which bash cannot give a sensible answer. In the > integer-overflow case, bash simply returns the wrong answer, with no > warning.
The answer is not really wrong, it's the same you get from the equivalent expression when evaluated in C. > But in the octal case, bash (quite correctly, and helpfully) > prints a warning. It's not a warning, it's an error (and the whole command containing the expansion is aborted). > If bash were to be consistent, then it should display no error message in > the case of $((3+078)); This is a syntax error, so there is no sensible meaning attached to it. A syntax error is something quite different than an undefined behaviour. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." _______________________________________________ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
