Chet Ramey wrote:
> Dave Rutherford wrote:
> > Now, "[[" isn't very well documented, so I tend not to use it,
>
> I'm always interested in suggestions for improving the bash documentation.
> Can you tell me what's unclear about the existing description of
> `[['?
It's probably my fault. I just don't really understand why it exists.
I know it does one thing -- =~ -- that `test' doesn't. I've never
needed that. The string operators ${#, %, /} are my friends.
So are awk and sed. And bash in general, for that matter.
But if I need a regex, it's probably to do some modification,
so I'll need to do more with it than merely match it.
If `test' weren't a shell builtin but was still /bin/[, I'd be using
[[ for speed. But it is, so I don't.
I know test's quirks. Does [[ have quirks? Are they the same?
Is there room in my grey matter to hold both sets of quirks
and keep them straight?
Perhaps a FAQ entry, or a part of the man page, explaining
when to use [[ and when [ would be of some help.
Best regards,
Dave
