On 7/22/13 9:07 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> The issue is whether or not attributes that determine how the assignment
> should be treated (-a/-A) or how the variable should be created (-g) are
> handled specially and affect how the value is expanded. The question
> is why -i should be omitted from that list.
>
> There is a fairly powerful argument for backwards compatibility here:
> Dan's suggestion of a workaround by quoting the rhs of the assignment
> statement is a good one.
I'm leaving things as they are for the time being.
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/
