Date:Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:51:13 -0400
From:"Dale R. Worley"
Message-ID: <87jzisx2mm@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
| For instance, how should this be logged?
|
| $ { echo foo ; echo bar ; } >/dev/null
In the NetBSD shell:
[jacaranda]{2}$ { echo foo ; echo bar
Date:Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:31:13 +0200
From:Angelo Borsotti
Message-ID:
| I would stress the importance of this: the purpose of scripts is
| to execute commands,
Yes.
| informing the caller of what they execute,
No. If a script wants to provide output like
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:51:13AM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> For instance, how should this be logged?
>
> $ { echo foo ; echo bar ; } >/dev/null
> + echo foo
> + echo bar
I'm 99% sure I know what answer the OP of this thread will give:
"It should write '{ echo foo ; echo bar ; }
Angelo Borsotti writes:
> the solution to show commands with "set -x" has, however, a flow: it
> does not show properly commands that contain redirections. E.g.,
...
> cat f1.txt f1.txt > f1.tmp
But showing redirections properly is difficult, not just in the
implementation, but in what it *means*
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:01:16AM +0200, Angelo Borsotti wrote:
> @echo-on
> cat f1.txt f1.txt > f1.tmp
> @echo-off
>
> I.e. the command is not entirely displayed.
Yeah. This is what I mentioned originally: set -x does not show
redirections. Ever. There is no workaround for this currently.
A
Dear all,
the solution to show commands with "set -x" has, however, a flow: it
does not show properly commands that contain redirections. E.g., let
tmp.sh be:
#!/bin/bash
shopt -s expand_aliases
alias @echo-on='set -x'
alias @echo-off='{ set +x; } 2>/dev/null'
PS4=
@echo-on
cat f1.txt f1.txt > f1
Dear all,
thank you very much for your quick replies. The solution:
alias @echo-on='set -x'
alias @echo-off='{ set +x; } 2>/dev/null'
PS4=
Solves the problem, and relieves from writing "echo COMMAND" before each
command that should be shown.
-Angelo Borsotti
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at
2024年6月13日(木) 5:20 Angelo Borsotti :
> This is not the same as debugging, for which set -x is devoted.
> "set -x" makes the ensuing commands be printed, but prefixed
> with "+ ", which makes the result look ugly,
PS4= (as Greg has replied)
> not to mention that
> the following "set +x" is echoed
args1() { printf %s\ "${@@K}" ; printf \\n ; } ; args1 echo foo ; args1
echo two three
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 10:58 PM alex xmb sw ratchev
wrote:
> there are two output lines , for the two cmds , sorry gmail problem
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 10:57 PM alex xmb sw ratchev
> wrote:
>
>> ~ $ args1(
there are two output lines , for the two cmds , sorry gmail problem
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 10:57 PM alex xmb sw ratchev
wrote:
> ~ $ args1() { printf %s\ "${@@K}" ; printf \\n ; } ; args1 echo foo ;
> args1 echo two three 'echo' 'foo'
> 'echo' 'two' 'three'
> ~ $
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 10:5
~ $ args1() { printf %s\ "${@@K}" ; printf \\n ; } ; args1 echo foo ;
args1 echo two three 'echo' 'foo'
'echo' 'two' 'three'
~ $
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 10:52 PM alex xmb sw ratchev
wrote:
> ~ $ logf=$HOME/alog1 ; run1() { printf '%(%F+%T%z)T %s' -1 "$1" >>"$logf"
> ; (( $# > 1 )) && printf \ %
~ $ logf=$HOME/alog1 ; run1() { printf '%(%F+%T%z)T %s' -1 "$1" >>"$logf" ;
(( $# > 1 )) && printf \ %s "${@:2}" >>"$logf" ; "$@" ; >>"$logf" printf
\\n ; } ; run1 echo foo ; cat "$logf"
foo
2024-06-12+22:51:31+0200 echo foo
~ $
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 10:26 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 07:31:13PM +0200, Angelo Borsotti wrote:
> "set -x" makes the ensuing commands be printed, but prefixed
> with "+ ", which makes the result look ugly, not to mention that
> the following "set +x" is echoed too (there are hacks to suppress
> the "set +x" output, but they are
Hi,
I am running bash 5.2.15(3)-release (x86_64-pc-cygwin) on
cygwin running on Windows 10.
Bash lacks a proper way of echoing commands, which is
present in other shells, even in ones which are much less
powerful, like, e.g. Windows CMD.
This is not the same as debugging, for which set -x is
On 7/2/14, 2:22 AM, Filip Krska wrote:
> Of course, treat the patch rather as proof of concept, there may be side
> effect I'm not aware.
There's a more direct one-line patch I'm looking at.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita b
Hi Chet,
On 06/30/2014 08:55 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/26/14, 4:56 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
On 06/11/2014 07:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
Hi,
bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
bash-4 minors.
However, ksh gave a di
On 6/26/14, 4:56 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 07:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
>>> bash-4 minors.
>>> However, ksh gave a different result all along.
>> This is
On 06/11/2014 07:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
Hi,
bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
bash-4 minors.
However, ksh gave a different result all along.
This isn't standardized, so I'm not worried about small differences b
On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> Hi,
> bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
> bash-4 minors.
> However, ksh gave a different result all along.
This isn't standardized, so I'm not worried about small differences between
implementations in something t
Hi,
bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than
previous bash-4 minors.
However, ksh gave a different result all along.
Steps to reproduce:
1. set -o vi
2. meta+k
3. v
4. for i in $(seq 10); do j=$( echo $i$i ); echo $j; done
echo second
# save and close the editor
Results
20 matches
Mail list logo
