Re: how does bash parse back-ticks, anyway?
Eric Blake wrote: > Read the POSIX rationale: > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/xrat/xcu_chap02.html > | [...] While the newer "$()" form can process > | any kind of valid embedded script, the backquoted form cannot handle > | some valid scripts that include backquotes. For example, these > otherwise > | valid embedded scripts do not work in the left column, but do work > on > | the right: > | > | echo ` echo $( > | cat <<\eof cat <<\eof > | a here-doc with ` a here-doc with ) > | eofeof > | ` ) > | > | echo ` echo $( > | echo abc # a comment with `echo abc # a comment with ) > | ` ) BTW, My bash-3.2.15(1)/libc2.3.6/i686-pc-linux-gnu-2.6.13 (like previous releases) fails on the first $() example. It also fails if the here-doc contains a single, double or back quote instead of the ). "case x in x)" in $() is also not accepted; this is to be worked around with "case x in (x)" (POSIX is stricter, though). Academic failure: an embedded here-doc, with unproblematic content, but ) as delimiter instead of eof. [ksh93 and all almquist shells are robust about all these. zsh and pdksh behave very similar to bash.] [[The second $() example from above was fixed with bash-3.2]] ___ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
Re: how does bash parse back-ticks, anyway?
Sven Mascheck wrote: >> | echo ` echo $( >> | cat <<\eof cat <<\eof >> | a here-doc with ` a here-doc with ) >> | eofeof >> | ` ) >> | >> | echo ` echo $( >> | echo abc # a comment with `echo abc # a comment with ) >> | ` ) > > BTW, > > My bash-3.2.15(1)/libc2.3.6/i686-pc-linux-gnu-2.6.13 (like previous > releases) fails on the first $() example. It also fails if the > here-doc contains a single, double or back quote instead of the ). > > "case x in x)" in $() is also not accepted; this is to be worked > around with "case x in (x)" (POSIX is stricter, though). These will be fixed in the next version of bash. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer Live Strong. No day but today. Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/ ___ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
Would bash ever use xterm color support as default?
Hi all, Most of us use bash by default. And bash is not intuitive atleast for people who are new to the system. I'm sure there have been suggestions made for this before & would be made after me and I guess the people maintaining bash would have some valid points why things like intelligent history completion, tab-completion, having color support have not been made defaults. Please lemme know any links or rationale which are behind these decisions. Couple of links https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/EnhancedBash as well as https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bash/+bug/103929 which want to do this. Of course there are others like fishshell http://fishshell.org/ which do the same thing but my question is why not bash? Hoping for some constructive comments on this. Thanx for your time. -- Shirish Agarwal This work is licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial Sampling Plus 1.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sampling+/1.0/ ___ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
