On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:07:33PM +, Marc Herbert wrote:
> > Not every feature is complicated enough that it requires special
> > documentation care and that it raises a discussion here.
>
> BASH_SUBSHELL isn't complicated at all. It's
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:07:33PM +, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Not every feature is complicated enough that it requires special
> documentation care and that it raises a discussion here.
BASH_SUBSHELL isn't complicated at all. It's just documented in a
confusing way. It doesn't require an examp
Le 24/03/2011 14:50, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02:33:19PM +, Marc Herbert wrote:
>> I would also like to see this example in the documentation:
>>
>> $ ( echo sub-$BASH_SUBSHELL ); echo main-$BASH_SUBSHELL
>> sub-1
>> main-0
>
> Overkill.
Tradeoff.
> Most of the other
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02:33:19PM +, Marc Herbert wrote:
> I would also like to see this example in the documentation:
>
> $ ( echo sub-$BASH_SUBSHELL ); echo main-$BASH_SUBSHELL
> sub-1
> main-0
Overkill. Most of the other features in the manual do not have such
examples, and if we added e
Le 23/03/2011 20:28, Chet Ramey a écrit :
> On 3/23/11 4:15 PM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>
>> Yes. But a new subshell environment has been spawned. Each time that
>> happens BASH_SUBSHELL should increase.
>>
>> Of course I know how it does work, but the man page isn't clear. It doesn't
>> say that the
On 23/03/11 20:32, Maarten Billemont wrote:
On 23 Mar 2011, at 21:28, Chet Ramey wrote:
OK. What wording would you like to see?
I don't mind the wording he proposed:
On 23 Mar 2011, at 17:12, Sam Liddicott wrote:
maybe it should say
BASH_SUBSHELL
Incremente
On 23 Mar 2011, at 21:28, Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> OK. What wording would you like to see?
I don't mind the wording he proposed:
On 23 Mar 2011, at 17:12, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>maybe it should say
>
>BASH_SUBSHELL
> Incremented by one in each nested subshell or sub
On 23 Mar 2011, at 21:15, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>
> On 23/03/11 18:52, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
>>> Machine: i686
>>> OS: linux-gnu
>>> Compiler: gcc
>>> Compilation
On 3/23/11 4:15 PM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Yes. But a new subshell environment has been spawned. Each time that
> happens BASH_SUBSHELL should increase.
>
> Of course I know how it does work, but the man page isn't clear. It doesn't
> say that the increase is only visible within the subshell and
On 23/03/11 18:52, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i686
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i686
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='pc'
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i686
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/locale' -DP$ uname
12 matches
Mail list logo
