> Am 24.04.2017 um 14:58 schrieb Greg Wooledge <wool...@eeg.ccf.org>:
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:49:36AM -0500, Eduardo Bustamante wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Greg Wooledge <wool...@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The outer (( )) in the C-style for loop already create an arithmetic
>>> expression context. You don't need to use $(( )) inside them. You can
>>> simply write:
>>>
>>> for (( INDEX=0; INDEX<10-${#V_NAME};; INDEX++ ))
>>
>> I think this is just to show the bug. i.e. these two should do the same:
>>
>> dualbus@debian:~$ bash -c 'for (( ; $(($(:))); )); do :; done'
>> bash: -c: line 0: syntax error near unexpected token `newline'
>> bash: -c: line 0: `for (( ; $(($(:))); )); do :; done'
>>
>> dualbus@debian:~$ bash -c 'for (( ; $((`:`)); )); do :; done'
>
> Yeah, I'm not disputing whether there's actually a bug here, just
> pointing out that the code can be simplified to avoid it. The fact that
> no sane person should write code this way is probably why the bug went
> undiscovered for so long.AFAICS in version 4.2.45(1) it works as expected. -- Reuti > Seriously, "expr length"?! In a script that is already using bashisms?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
