Avoid a double redisplay when using reverse incremental search for
example. `rl_message` already calls `(*rl_redisplay_function)` before
returning, in all cases (`USE_VARARGS` or not).
---
Hello,
this was tested on bash-5.2-testing, Bash-5.2-rc1 release.
It should also apply to bash-5.1.
It loo
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:22 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> The normal rules of precedence apply, and the conditional expression on the
> rhs of the `:' can't contain an assignment, since the assignment operator
> has higher precedence.
>
>
This excerpt from the Bash man page ARITHMETIC EVALUATION sectio
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:41:40PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Should we be attempting to reply to root@ROCKY8-5-WL.localdomain ?
>
> I'm not going to bother.
Same.
> ps: Isn't $[ supposed to be obsolete?
It's deprecated and undocumented. But Chet never removed the actual
code, presumably in or
Date:Mon, 11 Jul 2022 22:10:38 +0800 (CST)
From:root@ROCKY8-5-WL.localdomain
Message-ID: <20220711141038.BE1E299F00@ROCKY8-5-WL.localdomain>
Should we be attempting to reply to root@ROCKY8-5-WL.localdomain ?
I'm not going to bother.
| [root@ROCKY8-5-02 ~]#echo $[23
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 10:14:12PM +0800, root@ROCKY8-5-WL.localdomain wrote:
> [Detailed description of the problem, suggestion, or complaint.]
> in bash the result of $[23**15] is wrong
> for example output
> [root@ROCKY8-5-02 ~]#echo $[23**15]
> 8380818432457522983
> [root@ROCKY8-5-02 ~]#e
On 7/11/22 10:14 AM, root@ROCKY8-5-WL.localdomain wrote:
Bash Version: 4.4
Patch Level: 20
Release Status: release
Description:
[Detailed description of the problem, suggestion, or complaint.]
in bash the result of $[23**15] is wrong
for example output
[root@ROCKY8-5-02 ~]#echo $[23**15
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='x86_64'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='redhat' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/locale'
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='x86_64'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='redhat' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/locale'
On 7/11/22 9:48 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
And thanks for the explanation. (Assignment has lower.)
Yes. The assignment can't appear after the `:' because the *conditional*
operator has higher precedence.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars l
Andreas Schwab wrote in
:
|On Jul 09 2022, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> $ bash -c 'I=3; echo "$((1?(I*=I):I+=I))";echo $I'
|
|The third operand of ?: cannot contain an assignment expression, thus,
|like in C, this is parsed as `(1?(I*=I):I)+=I'.
..
--End of
Chet Ramey wrote in
<52011ddb-
On 7/10/22 8:35 AM, Anton Wessel wrote:
I am working with Kubuntu 22.04 and KNOPPIX 9.1, bash version is reported
by KNOPPIX:
5.1.4(1)-release (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
My bash script contains many bash one-liners and comments.
The one-liners are put into the history list by code like:
history -s
On 7/9/22 5:58 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Hey,
sorry to come back, but when banging against ?: implementation
i saw this bash 5.1.16 bug:
$ bash -c 'I=3; echo "$((1?(I*=I):(I+=I)))";echo $I'
The parens override precedence.
$ bash -c 'I=3; echo "$((1?(I*=I):I+=I))";echo $I'
bash: l
On Jul 09 2022, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> $ bash -c 'I=3; echo "$((1?(I*=I):I+=I))";echo $I'
The third operand of ?: cannot contain an assignment expression, thus,
like in C, this is parsed as `(1?(I*=I):I)+=I'.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9
Hey,
sorry to come back, but when banging against ?: implementation
i saw this bash 5.1.16 bug:
$ bash -c 'I=3; echo "$((1?(I*=I):(I+=I)))";echo $I'
9
9
$ bash -c 'I=3; echo "$((1?(I*=I):I+=I))";echo $I'
bash: line 1: 1?(I*=I):I+=I: attempted assignment to non-variable (error
token is
14 matches
Mail list logo
