Re: patch number 035

Roman Rakus wrote: I have found small bug in patch number 035. There aren't 3 lines after the change, so patch with fuzz=0 don't work. I'm sending changed patch. Can you please change official patch? There aren't three lines after the changes in this patch, either. In fact, I make almost all

Re: inconsistent treatment of backslash-bang

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: No idea about that. GNU project folks are well-known for deprecating man pages. I didn't. The man page and info manual are equally authoritative. Send reports of mistakes or discrepancies to me. In this case, as I said, the info manual contains the same text. Chet

Re: inconsistent treatment of backslash-bang

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chet Ramey wrote: >> This is from the man page, in the QUOTING section: > > No idea about that. GNU project folks are well-known for deprecating man > pages. I go by the reference manual > . That

Re: inconsistent treatment of backslash-bang

Chet Ramey wrote: > This is from the man page, in the QUOTING section: No idea about that. GNU project folks are well-known for deprecating man pages. I go by the reference manual . That's the manual I use for reference. Being the reference ma

Re: cannot pipe output of trap

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Machine Type: i686-pc-cygwin Bash Version: 3.2 Patch Level: 39 Release Status: release Description: After registering trap handlers, 'trap | cat' does not deliver any output ('trap' does). Each element of a pipeline is run in a separate process. The

cannot pipe output of trap

From: oimbusc To: bug-bash@gnu.org Subject: cannot pipe output of trap Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]: Machine: i686 OS: cygwin Compiler: gcc Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash.exe' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686' -DCONF_OSTYPE='cygwin' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-cygwin

Re: inconsistent treatment of backslash-bang

On Wednesday 23 July 2008 14:46, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In which way is that wrong? > > Maybe not: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> set +H > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> echo "y" > y > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> echo "\y" > \y > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> echo y > y > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> echo \y > y > > That still

Re: inconsistent treatment of backslash-bang

> That still leaves the issue of the discrepancy between the way bash actually > behaves, and the way it's documented to behave. Really. This is from the man page, in the QUOTING section: Enclosing characters in double quotes preserves the literal value of all characters within the quotes,

Re: inconsistent treatment of backslash-bang

Andreas Schwab wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes: > >> And even with the specialness of bang turned off, it still doesn't work >> right: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> set +H >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> echo "hi there!" >> hi there! >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> echo "hi there\!" >> hi there\! >> [EMAIL PRO