On 9/17/10 8:20 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Linda Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> writes:
>>
>>> Or another disparity: C.
>>> t='one two three'
>>> c='one two three'
>>> 1) if [[ $t == $a ]]; then echo 'Matches'; fi
>>> 2) if [[ $t == "$a" ]]; then echo 'Matches'; fi
>>> So, the expressions match whether or not $a is in double quotes or not
>>> (single quotes would not match, as the $a would be taken literally).
>>
>> Set a='one * three' and try again.
> ----
> Why? How would that be any different than case B4 & B5 that I already
> showed?
I'm not sure you are understanding the difference between one case that
does not include any special pattern characters (what you're using with
==) and one that does (what you're using with =~). Since the quoting
disables the special meaning of pattern characters, how can you claim
that your examples are equivalent?
>>> Quoting should not disable RE matching.
That's what you're asserting. You're certainly entitled to do so. Since
quoting does also disable pattern matching when using ==, however, you
can't use alleged inconsistency as an argument.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
