On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 5:39 PM Zachary Santer wrote:
>
> Another alternative would be for bash to print a warning whenever it
> encounters this syntax.
>
Don't do that, the one who don't care about shell portability. i.e the
script started with #!/bin/bash may well be using this construct "for
On 3/10/25 9:38 AM, John Wiersba wrote:
Maybe a comment in the documentation along the lines of:
There are also alternate, deprecated syntactic constructs for these loops
which will not be documented here
would serve both aims?
How is that better? It leads to the inevitable "well,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:54 AM John Wiersba via Bug reports for the
GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
>
> 2) However, if the alternate syntax is actively supported, then I think it
> *should* be documented, even if it is considered error-prone and if
> "best-practice" is to avoid it.
> The alterna
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025, 00:54 John Wiersba via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne
Again SHell, wrote:
> The alternative is to have people, like me, stumbling on this
> undocumented syntax and spending a considerable amount of time trying to
> explore what it is and why it is undocumented.
Hah! That's
On Monday, March 10, 2025, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne
Again SHell wrote:
>
> The alternative is to have people, like me, stumbling on this
> undocumented syntax and spending a considerable amount of time trying to
> explore what it is and why it is undocumented.
>
And how is
I guess we could approach this topic a different way (the statements below are
just my guesses and not based on any particular insight I have into the history
of this syntax):
1) If this alternate syntax is not actively supported, then that could be
stated as the reason why it is not (further)
On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 12:38:38 PM EDT, Zachary Santer
wrote:
> Another alternative would be for bash to print a warning whenever it
> encounters this syntax.
There are precedents for this kind of behavior in languages like perl which
issue warnings
for deprecated features for several rel
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025, at 12:38 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> There are other weird, undocumented things that you could have the
> same conversation about. ${#@} is equivalent to ${#}
This is documented and not at all weird. $# came from Bourne, and
${#@} is a logical extension of ${#var} that happe
Thanks, Chet!
Yes, you're right that zsh definitely does not encourage use of these
non-standard constructs.
This whole thread got started when I accidentally created a mashup of
shell/perl, similar to:
for (( i=0; i<3; ++i )) { echo $i; }
and was really quite surprised to find that i
On 3/7/25 12:23 PM, John Wiersba wrote:
You're discouraging it's use by not documenting it. BTW, according to
those links below, apparently zsh documents it (and encourages its use)?
I think "encourages" is a very generous reading of "These are
non-standard and are likely not to be obvious ev
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, at 12:23 PM, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the GNU
Bourne Again SHell wrote:
> You're discouraging it's use by not documenting it.
That is the point, I believe.
> BTW, according to those links below, apparently zsh documents it
This is true.
https://zsh.sourceforge.io/D
Thanks, Greg!!!
On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 01:19:28 PM EST, Greg Wooledge
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 17:23:57 +, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the
GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
> - Is our conversation being recorded somewhere in the gnu archives, so
>that I can link to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 17:23:57 +, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the
GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
>- Is our conversation being recorded somewhere in the gnu archives, so
> that I can link to it in my stackoverflow question? Otherwise, I'll just
> clip quotes from it to paste there.
Thanks for your reply, Chet!
You're discouraging it's use by not documenting it. BTW, according to those
links below, apparently zsh documents it (and encourages its use)?
Two questions:
- Is there a link to some page where you document
obsolete/discouraged/deprecated constructs?
On 3/7/25 9:23 AM, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell wrote:
In all versions of bash since 2001 (e.g. 5.1.16(1)-release), the following syntax
works but is not documented:$ for (( i=0; i<3; ++i )) { echo $i; }
0
1
2
The group command as loop body syntax only exists for
In all versions of bash since 2001 (e.g. 5.1.16(1)-release), the following
syntax works but is not documented:$ for (( i=0; i<3; ++i )) { echo $i; }
0
1
2
The manpage only lists this syntax: for (( expr1 ; expr2 ; expr3 )) ; do list
; done$ bash --version | head -1 # on a Dell desktop, linux
16 matches
Mail list logo
