On 12/16/14 5:10 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> bash-4.3$ a=([9223372036854775806]=1 2 3 4)
> bash-4.3$ echo "${!a[@]}"
> -9223372036854775808 -9223372036854775807 9223372036854775806
> 9223372036854775807
>
> That wraps but as signed longs, which means we get negative
> indexes which we can't ea
2014-12-16 21:49:58 +, Stephane Chazelas:
[...]
> 1.1 litteral array assignment.
[...]
> 1.2 litteral scalar assignment
[...]
> 2. words that don't form valid assignments.
>
> Those are parsed as normal command line arguments.
>
> declare \a=(...)
>
> would get a syntax error because of the
bash-4.3$ a=([9223372036854775806]=1 2 3 4)
bash-4.3$ echo "${!a[@]}"
-9223372036854775808 -9223372036854775807 9223372036854775806
9223372036854775807
That wraps but as signed longs, which means we get negative
indexes which we can't easily use.
bash-4.3$ echo "${a[@]}"
3 4 1 2
bash-4.3$ for i
2014-12-15 22:00:54 -0500, Chet Ramey:
> On 12/14/14 4:44 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>
> > There's still a (security) issue with
> >
> > declare -x/-l/-r
> > that may still be used in non-function contexts (not "export" or
> > "readonly"), and as result for things like:
> >
> > saved=$(export
On 12/15/14, 9:41 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Though I just ran into a bit of weirdness (in 4.2.45)
> (output is commented out and indented):
>
> env -i /bin/bash --norc --noprofile
> declare -a ar=(ONE TWO THREE)
> declare -p ar
> # declare -a ar='([0]="ONE" [1]="TWO" [2]="THREE")'
>
>
On 12/16/14, 2:53 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> On Sunday, December 14, 2014 02:39:29 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>> And we get to the fundamental issue. Is it appropriate to require
>> arguments to declaration commands to be valid assignment statements when
>> the parser sees them, instead of when the builti
2014-12-16 12:30:52 +, Stephane Chazelas:
> 2014-12-16 01:53:52 -0600, Dan Douglas:
> [...]
> > That would be one way but I think this can be solved without going quite
> > so far. How do you feel about these rules?
> >
> > 1. If a word that is an argument to declare is parsed as a valid
>
2014-12-16 01:53:52 -0600, Dan Douglas:
[...]
> That would be one way but I think this can be solved without going quite
> so far. How do you feel about these rules?
>
> 1. If a word that is an argument to declare is parsed as a valid
> assignment, then perform the assignment immedi
