Crap, looks like I accidentally just replied to a single person instead of
the whole list. Here it is (and sorry if I'm uselessly cluttering up
everyone's inboxes!):
-- Forwarded message -
From: Great Big Dot
Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Indices of array variable
On 11/5/18 8:44 PM, Great Big Dot wrote:
> > What's actually happening here is that the *indirection* expansion
> > "${!foo}", and not the *indices* expansion "${!foo[@]}", is what is being
> > preformed on something like "${!array[@]-}". Both expansions, while
> > unrelated, happen to use the sam
On 11/5/18 8:44 PM, Great Big Dot wrote:
> What's actually happening here is that the *indirection* expansion
> "${!foo}", and not the *indices* expansion "${!foo[@]}", is what is being
> preformed on something like "${!array[@]-}". Both expansions, while
> unrelated, happen to use the same syntax
On 11/5/18 4:42 PM, Great Big Dot wrote:
> Description:
> The parameter expansion "${!var[@]}" expands to the indices of an array
> (whether linear or associative). The expansion "${var-string}"
> returns "${var}" iff var is set and 'string' otherwise. These two
> features do not
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:04:49PM -0500, Great Big Dot wrote:
> Hold up... when I view this email on the public archives, all of my
> "${array[@]}"'s (that is, "${array[]}"'a) got turned to
> "address@hidden"'s.
Sadly, there's nothing we can do about that. The maintainers of the
list archive wou
