Re: grammar error in Bash Reference Manual

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, at 9:18 PM, LY via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote: > I think there is a grammar error in this sentence > in https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Conditional-Constructs.html > >  "but double quote characters in expression are not treated > spe

grammar error in Bash Reference Manual

Hi, I think there is a grammar error in this sentence in https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Conditional-Constructs.html  "but double quote characters in expression are not treated specially are removed." This sentence should be changed to "but double quote characters in ex

Re: Bash Reference Manual: broken link

On 4/25/24 2:37 AM, Jim Blackson wrote: Hello GNU, 1. Perhaps there is a broken link in the bread crumb list of the index page of the Bash Reference Manual, found at: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/index.html Thanks for the report. I'm not sure if this is an artifa

Re: Possible Typo for "Set" Section of Bash Reference Manual

On 5/6/24 8:32 PM, John wrote: Hi! I believe the Bash Reference Manual is missing a key note for using "set -o". On the man page for "bash" (https://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/bash.html), the following line is present  * If *-o* is supplied with no /option-name

Possible Typo for "Set" Section of Bash Reference Manual

Hi! I believe the Bash Reference Manual is missing a key note for using "set -o". On the man page for "bash" (https://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/bash.html), the following line is present * If *-o* is supplied with no /option-name/, the values of the current opt

Bash Reference Manual: broken link

Hello GNU, 1. Perhaps there is a broken link in the bread crumb list of the index page of the Bash Reference Manual, found at: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/index.html The bread crumb list shows: Next: Introduction, Previous: (dir), Up: (dir) [Contents][Index] Each

Re: Bash reference manual: shell parameter expansion examples

On 2/23/24 10:44 AM, James Weigle wrote: Hi! In the Bash reference manual, there are a series of examples of testing if a variable is null or unset: - Under *${parameter:-word}*, the usage is *${var-unset}*. - Under *${parameter:=word}*, the usage is *${var:=DEFAULT}*. - Under

Bash reference manual: shell parameter expansion examples

Hi! In the Bash reference manual, there are a series of examples of testing if a variable is null or unset: - Under *${parameter:-word}*, the usage is *${var-unset}*. - Under *${parameter:=word}*, the usage is *${var:=DEFAULT}*. - Under *${parameter:?word}*, the usage is *${var:?var is

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 3:02 PM Martin Schulte wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > thanks for your answer! > > > This isn't regex. > > Sure! > > > It's a command synopsis using a long standing notation > > style. You can see it set out in POSIX in > > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

Date:Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:41:37 -0400 From:Chet Ramey Message-ID: <625e93f4-280b-2cd4-f84d-2305bd347...@case.edu> | On 3/31/23 12:30 PM, Martin Schulte wrote: | > Hi Chet! | > | >> Thanks for the report. The synopsis should read | >> | >> cd [-L|[-P [-e]]]

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 2:47 PM Martin Schulte wrote: > Hi Chet! > > > >> Thanks for the report. The synopsis should read > > >> > > >> cd [-L|[-P [-e]]] [-@] [dir] > > > ^ ^ > > > But aren't these two brackets just superfluous? > > > > -L and -P are mutually exclusive, and -e is va

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

Hi Chet! > >> Thanks for the report. The synopsis should read > >> > >> cd [-L|[-P [-e]]] [-@] [dir] > > ^ ^ > > But aren't these two brackets just superfluous? > > -L and -P are mutually exclusive, and -e is valid only when -P is > supplied. Yes, my feeling was just that | has s

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

On 3/31/23 12:30 PM, Martin Schulte wrote: Hi Chet! Thanks for the report. The synopsis should read cd [-L|[-P [-e]]] [-@] [dir] ^ ^ But aren't these two brackets just superfluous? -L and -P are mutually exclusive, and -e is valid only when -P is supplied. -- ``The lyf so s

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 06:30:00PM +0200, Martin Schulte wrote: > Hi Chet! > > > Thanks for the report. The synopsis should read > > > > cd [-L|[-P [-e]]] [-@] [dir] > ^ ^ > But aren't these two brackets just superfluous? Then -L would get the -e too. -- Regards, Mike Jonkmans

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

Hi Chet! > Thanks for the report. The synopsis should read > > cd [-L|[-P [-e]]] [-@] [dir] ^ ^ But aren't these two brackets just superfluous? Best regards, Martin

Re: Bash Reference Manual Type

On 3/31/23 3:42 AM, Ikenna West wrote: Hello, I was going looking through the Bash reference manual and I noticed that on page 55, when it lists the options for the cd command it is written as cd [-L|[-P [-e]] [-@] [directory]. However, when typing help cd into Bash it prints out cd [-L

Bash Reference Manual Type

Hello, I was going looking through the Bash reference manual and I noticed that on page 55, when it lists the options for the cd command it is written as cd [-L|[-P [-e]] [-@] [directory]. However, when typing help cd into Bash it prints out cd [-L | [-P [-e]] [-@]] [dir] So it looks like

Re: Bash reference manual feedback

On 9/11/22 11:30 AM, David Apps wrote: I hope that you are well. Thank you for your work on this great software. I have some feedback about the document at: http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html the Bash shell (version 5.1, 21 December 2020). Thanks for your careful reading of th

Bash reference manual feedback

Thank you very much for your message. I am not surprised that I have misunderstood this item. I have much to learn. * the shell does not print a warning message if an attempt is made to use a quoted compound assignment as an argument to declare (declare -a foo=’(1 2)’). Later versions warn th

Re: Bash reference manual feedback

>> 9. It is probably unhelpful to use the "’" character here. > >You have inadvertently stated the entire point of this section: yes, they >are an unhelpful historical anomaly and should not be used in scripts. Of >course this advisory has to actually show the characters that it's telling >you to a

Re: Bash reference manual feedback

I believe you are correct on all points except this one: On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 01:30, David Apps wrote: > h3 6.12 Shell Compatibility Mode > > > * the shell does not print a warning message if an attempt is made to > > use a quoted compound assignment as an argument to declare (declare -a > >

Bash reference manual feedback

I hope that you are well. Thank you for your work on this great software. I have some feedback about the document at: http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html the Bash shell (version 5.1, 21 December 2020). I do not know how you prefer to receive feedback. When I quote the document,

Re: Bash reference manual errata

On 2020-07-10 at 09:06 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 7/10/20 4:24 AM, 홍홍 wrote: > > In Bourne shell > > builtin(https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Bourne-Shell-Builtins > > > > ), > > shift command > > >

Re: Bash reference manual errata

On 7/10/20 4:24 AM, 홍홍 wrote: > In Bourne shell > builtin(https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Bourne-Shell-Builtins > ), > shift command > > > "Parameters represented by the numbers $# to $#-n+1 are unset.

Bash reference manual errata

In Bourne shell builtin(https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Bourne-Shell-Builtins ), shift command "Parameters represented by the numbers $# to $#-n+1 are unset." should be "Parameters represented by the

Re: Possible bug in Bash Reference Manual - lists of commands

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:38:29PM +0800, Ralph Jensen wrote: > The Bash Reference Manual, Edition 5 and earlier versions define lists of > commands as follows: > > "A list is a sequence of one or more pipelines separated by one of the > operators ..." (Ba

Possible bug in Bash Reference Manual - lists of commands

The Bash Reference Manual, Edition 5 and earlier versions define lists of commands as follows: "A list is a sequence of one or more pipelines separated by one of the operators ..." (Bash Reference Manual 3.2.3). Shouldn't that say commands rather than pipelines? Ralph Jensen

Re: Bash reference manual

Ok, thank you. ⁣Wail Sent from BlueMail ​ On Feb 21, 2019, 16:10, at 16:10, Chet Ramey wrote: >On 2/21/19 6:04 AM, Wail Yahyaoui wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I was reading the Bash reference manual online and I could not find >any mention that when doing variable assign

Re: Bash reference manual

On 2/21/19 6:04 AM, Wail Yahyaoui wrote: > Hello, > > I was reading the Bash reference manual online and I could not find any > mention that when doing variable assignments there should be no space around > the equal sign. The example in the texinfo manual doesn't include

Bash reference manual

Hello, I was reading the Bash reference manual online and I could not find any mention that when doing variable assignments there should be no space around the equal sign. Regards, ⁣Wail Sent from BlueMail ​

Pull request: Typofix from Bash Reference Manual

$ git request-pull -p ce0469bfbe4176802d4ffd1f272010e14bc4ed81 https://notabug.org/jorgesumle/bash/commits/devel fatal: https://notabug.org/jorgesumle/bash/commits/devel/info/refs not valid: is this a git repository? warn: No match for commit cdd777944a1cb6af49b6672ab59bbb6e0a1e5aa7 found at https:

Translation of the Bash Reference Manual - edition 4.3, into Brazilian Portuguese language [ANNOUNCEMENT]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Jaboatão dos Guararapes, Pernambuco, Brazil, 25 February 2016. Subject: Translation of the Bash Reference Manual - edition 4.3 - version 4.3, 2 February 2014, into Brazilian Portuguese language

Re: \? is missing in "3.1.2.4 ANSI-C Quoting" in Bash Reference Manual

On Sep 4, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: > I guess I see what you're saying: that bash removes the backslash quoting > the `?' when processing $'...' but leaves backslashes escaping other > characters not listed in the description of $'...' unchanged. I can add > that to the documentation.

Re: \? is missing in "3.1.2.4 ANSI-C Quoting" in Bash Reference Manual

On 9/2/15 11:46 PM, ziyunfei wrote: > Sorry, I didn't understand your reply. What I'm saying is this: \? is shown > in printf section: > > "Causes printf to expand backslash escape sequences in the corresponding > argument, except that ‘\c’ terminates output, backslashes in ‘\'’, ‘\"’, > and ‘\?’

Re: \? is missing in "3.1.2.4 ANSI-C Quoting" in Bash Reference Manual

Sorry, I didn't understand your reply. What I'm saying is this: \? is shown in printf section: "Causes printf to expand backslash escape sequences in the corresponding argument, except that ‘\c’ terminates output, backslashes in ‘\'’, ‘\"’, and ‘\?’ are not removed, and octal escapes beginning

Re: \? is missing in "3.1.2.4 ANSI-C Quoting" in Bash Reference Manual

On 9/2/15 10:00 AM, ziyunfei wrote: > bash-4.3$ echo $'\?' > ? > > \? should be added there. Backslash-escape sequences that are not present in the documentation are left unchanged. Posix leaves these up to the implementation. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer

\? is missing in "3.1.2.4 ANSI-C Quoting" in Bash Reference Manual

bash-4.3$ echo $'\?' ? \? should be added there.

Bug in the Bash Reference Manual

In section "6.3.2 Is this Shell Interactive?", the Bash Manual advocates: if [ -z "$PS1" ]; then echo This shell is not interactive fi however, this does not work in any shell I've tested (RedHat 4 & 5, OpenSUSE 11.1, SLES 10 & 11). It seems that the idea of testing the prompt variable was

Error in Bash Reference Manual

___ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash