Am 12.01.2013 15:34, schrieb Dan Douglas:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:39:19 PM Dan Douglas wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 02:35:34 AM John Kearney wrote:
>> BTW, your wrappers won't work. A wrapper would need to implement format
> Hrmf I should have clarified that I only meant A complete printf wrapper
> would
> be difficult. A single-purpose workaround is perfectly fine. e.g.
> printq() { ${1+printf %q "$@"}; }; ... which is probably something like what
> you meant. Sorry for the rant.
>
Don't worry I've got a thick skin ;) feel free to rant, you have a
different perspective and I like that.
anyway now we have a point I disagree that
"${@}"
should expand to 0 or more words, from the documentation it should be 1
or more. At least that is how I read that paragragh. IT says it will
split the word not make the word vanish.
so I had to test and it really does how weird, is that in the posix spec?.
set --
test_func() { echo $#; }
test_func "${@}"
0
test_func "1${@}"
1
test_func "${@:-}"
1
test_func "${@-}"
1
Now I'm confused ...
oh well sorry had the functionality differently in my head.
