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 > `[['? > > Chet >
The documentation is complete. What some people always seem to forget is, that it's a reference, not a tutorial. You can't start to learn from the documentation. IMHO the job of the Bash documentation is to tell that "[[ ]]" exists, its working prionciple, and its differences to "[". But its job is not to tell *why* it exists. So, if the Bash documentation (mainly talking about the manpage here) is intended to be used as a reference, then it's definitely complete. When you know what you're searching for, you find it within a minute in 95% of the cases. J.
