> That code hasn't really changed in almost twenty years. All the testing
> was done long ago.
Do you keep all the testing code in the bash repository? Or you keep
the testing code separately from the bash source? Given the fugal
testing code that is in the bash source, it is doesn't seem that the
On 12/28/18 10:54 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
>
>
> Sure, it's a candidate for inclusion in a future version. I wouldn't
> object
> if someone wanted to do a sample implementation, since it changes how the
> variable value is parsed.
>
>
> I only wish I knew enough C to make any (even small
On 12/28/18 10:58 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
> Chet Ramey (mailto:chet.ra...@case.edu>>) wrote:
>
> On 12/23/18 12:07 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
>
>
> {...}
>
>
> > Have you been able to "take a look" ?
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact. Look at the changelog for the day or two around
> the date
On 12/28/18 11:26 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
> Chet Ramey (mailto:chet.ra...@case.edu>>) wrote:
>
> On 12/23/18 12:01 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
>
> {…}
>
> > Both command line above should have printed "hello".
>
> No. 0 is the only valid subscript for a non-array variable. The difference
> be
On 12/29/18 6:09 AM, Paulo Nogueira wrote:
>
>
> Bash Version: 4.4
> Patch Level: 19
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
>
> I've come to the conclusion that bash scripts
>
> (1) are not entirely loaded in memory at once
>
> or, at least,
>
> (2) are re-read (from the disk?) if th
Bash Version: 4.4
Patch Level: 19
Release Status: release
Configuration Information:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Description:
I've come to the conclusion that bash scripts
(1) are not entirely loaded in memory at once
or, at least,
(2) are re-read (from the disk?) i
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 1:44 PM Bize Ma Chet Ramey () wrote:
>
> > On 12/23/18 12:01 PM, Bize Ma wrote:
> >
> {…}
>
> > > Both command line above should have printed "hello".
> >
> > No. 0 is the only valid subscript for a non-array variable. The
> difference
> > between bash and other shells that i
