On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Steven W. Orr <ste...@syslang.net> wrote: > On 2/27/2012 1:26 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Davide Baldini >> <baldiniebald...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 02/27/12 05:04, DJ Mills wrote: >>>> >>>> Think of regular here-doc (with an unquoted word) as being treated the >>>> same way as a double-quoted string >>> >>> >>> Thank you Mills, of course I can understand it _now_, after having hit >>> the problem, but my point is different: the description of a program's >>> details should be first of all in its main point of reference, its >>> manual. I'm a bit surprised that while the developers elite perfectly >>> know the correct details, nobody is going to review a misleading manual >>> being a reference for the most of us. >> >> >> The manual seems quite clear: >> "If word is unquoted, all lines of the here-document are subjected to >> parameter expansion, command substitution, and arithmetic >> expansion. In the latter case, the character sequence \<newline> is >> ignored, and \ must be used to quote the characters \, $, and `." >> >> Maybe you could point the part of the manual that mislead you into >> thinking that " here doc are supposed to expand with no special >> exceptions" so that it can be corrected? > > > I don't mean this in a snarky way, but shell man pages are historically in > the class of docs that you really need to read over and over again. There > are a few books on shell programming, most of them not very good, but I > personally have read the bash man pages literally thousands of times and > before I'm dead, I expect to multiply that many times over. There are really > good web pages that people have put a lot of of time and energy into, and > those are not to be dismissed. The idea is to assemble your resources enough > that you can know where to go to answer a specific question. In between > those questions, you really need to re-read your reference material on a > regular basis. > > It never ends. :-)
Sure, reference material is always a bit rough, it's a different thing to call it misleading.
