that u word comply to very outdated specs i did word bye
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 15:26 Martin D Kealey <mar...@kurahaupo.gen.nz> wrote: > I now very much regret not commenting on this proposal during the > pre-release period, and I apologise for not having done so. > > On Fri, 4 Nov 2022, 05:50 Chet Ramey, <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > > > > > The option is enabled by default. If you want to restore the previous > > behavior, add `shopt -u patsub_replacement'. > > > > I am very disquieted by this pattern of creating breaking changes and then > saying "just add shopt blahblah to go back to the old behaviour". > > This might be justifiable to a fix for a security problem (e.g. array > subscripting), but *this* is just a nice-to-have feature. > > Suggesting that an existing script should be modified implies that scripts > must necessarily have "maintainers" whose job includes tracking changes to > the language provided by Bash, or that every piece of software installed on > a system comes from a single source who can test combinations for > compatibility. > > That is not the world that we live in. > > The average user out there has almost zero shell scripting experience, and > even less competence to diagnose faults in their system. They rely on a > package manager to install versions of basic utilities like Bash, and > diligently apply updates to keep on top of security. They also get other > software from sources who know nothing about them or their package manager. > > In this context the reasonable thing to do is to aim for maximal backwards > compatibility, and only enable breaking changes when a special option or > command is used. > > Can we please have an immediate point release turning this feature off by > default, and then let's take another look at how this can be done without > gratuitous breakage of existing code. > > -Martin > > PS: > I'm puzzled why a bare '&' was chosen in the first place; that seems to > provide the maximal likelihood of conflict with existing code. > > As an alternative that wouldn't need an enabling option, how about using > "$BASH_MATCH" or "$&"? (I suspect the latter would be easier to use as a > marker for a deferred expansion.) > > Rather than inserting a modal command or option, one possibility might be > to use the same mechanism as handles POSIX "sh", and extend it to look for > a trailing version number, and use that to enable new features. >
