On 1/30/12 4:14 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> It seems there is a a platform dependent bug somewhere:
>
>> HISTSIZE=$(((3**15))
> echo $HISTSIZE
> 1000
> --- but you have no history...
It depends on how the platform does integer truncation. Bash uses intmax_t
for its numbers internally; t
On 01/30/2012 02:27 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>
>> As Eric said, the other parts of the Posix description make it clear that
>> the `ignoring set -e' status is inherited by subshells.
>
>
> The original POSIX standard made this clear -- in that
> it was only a fail
Chet Ramey wrote:
As Eric said, the other parts of the Posix description make it clear that
the `ignoring set -e' status is inherited by subshells.
The original POSIX standard made this clear -- in that
it was only a failure of a 'simple' command that resulted' in
an err-exit'.
It seems there is a a platform dependent bug somewhere:
> HISTSIZE=$(((3**15))
echo $HISTSIZE
1000
--- but you have no history...
Pierre Gaston wrote:
Setting HISTFILESIZE to 2147483647 gives you 68 years of history at
one command per seconds
(I hope I got my math right)
with say
On 1/30/12 2:24 PM, DJ Mills wrote:
>> How is `INTEGER' any clearer? Integer constants can be specified as octal
>> or hex.
>
> Well, ok. The quoted section from the man page specifies a decimal.
How about `decimal whole number between 2 and 64'?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to ler
DJ Mills wrote:
OK. �How about if that sentence began with `When specifying n, the
digits greater ...'?
declare -i foo; foo=20#a2; echo "$foo"
202
[base#]n, 'base' is a INTEGER 2-64, then '#', followed by the number.
---
Slightly more exact/pedantic, how about:
Syntax for integer cons
> How is `INTEGER' any clearer? Integer constants can be specified as octal
> or hex.
Well, ok. The quoted section from the man page specifies a decimal.
> > OK. How about if that sentence began with `When specifying n, the
> > digits greater ...'?
>
> declare -i foo; foo=20#a2; echo "$foo"
> 202
>
> [base#]n, 'base' is a INTEGER 2-64, then '#', followed by the number.
How is `INTEGER' any clearer? Integer constants can be specified as octal
or
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> DJ Mills wrote:
>
>>> OK. �How about if that sentence began with `When specifying n, the
>>> digits greater ...'?
>>
>>
>> declare -i foo; foo=20#a2; echo "$foo"
>> 202
>>
>> [base#]n, 'base' is a INTEGER 2-64, then '#', followed by the num
DJ Mills wrote:
OK. �How about if that sentence began with `When specifying n, the
digits greater ...'?
declare -i foo; foo=20#a2; echo "$foo"
202
[base#]n, 'base' is a INTEGER 2-64, then '#', followed by the number.
^^^ That's much more clear!
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Ivan Yosifov wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I got an admittedly basic question but I'm really at my wits' end with
> this.
>
> How do I enable infinite command history ?
>
> One simple suggestion I've seen online is to set HISTSIZE and
> HISTFILESIZE to a large number.
Hi everyone,
I got an admittedly basic question but I'm really at my wits' end with
this.
How do I enable infinite command history ?
One simple suggestion I've seen online is to set HISTSIZE and
HISTFILESIZE to a large number. This is not what I need, I want
genuinely unconstrained history fil
> OK. How about if that sentence began with `When specifying n, the
> digits greater ...'?
declare -i foo; foo=20#a2; echo "$foo"
202
[base#]n, 'base' is a INTEGER 2-64, then '#', followed by the number.
13 matches
Mail list logo
