On Friday, March 01, 2013 01:06:27 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hrm, but the docs, both, specifically say that (unquoted) $@ behaves
> like $* except in the face of no arguments, so I cannot do that.
>
> But thanks for the feedback. My reading differed, but you have a
> point, and the others can be
Dan Douglas dixit:
>For "$@" that sounds about right. I think it would be preferable if x="$@" and
>x=$@ were the same. If a user wants IFS-delimited they should probably use
Hrm, but the docs, both, specifically say that (unquoted) $@ behaves
like $* except in the face of no arguments, so I ca
On Friday, March 01, 2013 11:49:37 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Dan Douglas dixit:
>
> >Well, ok then. I'm just nitpicking here. I think this makes sense because
> >distinguishes between $@ and $* when assigning to a scalar, so that the end
> >result of $@ is always space-separated, as spaces deli
Dan Douglas dixit:
>Well, ok then. I'm just nitpicking here. I think this makes sense because it
>distinguishes between $@ and $* when assigning to a scalar, so that the end
>result of $@ is always space-separated, as spaces delimit words during command
[…]
>Consider for example if you ever imp
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 01:31:58 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Why whitespace? $IFS certainly contains none. And the usual
> insertion rules all specify the first character of $IFS and
> specify what to do if $IFS is empty or unset (which it isn’t
> in these examples).
Well, ok then. I'm jus
Dan Douglas dixit:
>of any reason it should be inserting a '':'' between the two arguments,
>especially for the ''$@'' variants, either quoted or unquoted. It certainly
>can't be because of a word splitting step.
‘:’ is ${IFS::1} and inserted because of the word *concatenation*
(not splitting)
On Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:26:52 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Dan Douglas dixit:
>
> >Zsh and pdkshes produce:
> >
> >one:::two:three:::four
> >
> >For all of the above, which I think is wrong for the last 4. ksh93
> >produces:
>
> Why is it incorrect?
This test was intended to demonstrate e
Dan Douglas dixit:
>Zsh and pdkshes produce:
>
>one:::two:three:::four
>
>For all of the above, which I think is wrong for the last 4. ksh93 produces:
Why is it incorrect?
The mksh manpage documents $@ behaving like $*:
@ Same as $*, unless it is used inside double quotes, in which c
On 1/30/13 1:03 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> Hi everyone, and welcome to another edition of IBOTD (IFS-bug-of-the-day),
> featuring everyone's favorite Bourne shell kludge: word-splitting!
>
> On today's episode - inconsistencies within assignments that depend upon
> quoting. Though I can't take cre
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:35:55 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 1/30/13 2:47 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
>
> > No, $* always expands to a single word. If multiple words result, those
> > are
> > the result of field-splitting, not an intrinsic multi-word expansion as in
> > the
> > case of $@. Thoug
On 1/30/13 2:47 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> No, $* always expands to a single word. If multiple words result, those are
> the result of field-splitting, not an intrinsic multi-word expansion as in
> the
> case of $@. Though POSIX says very little about the unquoted cases.
I haven't looked at the
"Chris F.A. Johnson" writes:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> "Chris F.A. Johnson" writes:
>>
var=${a[*]} ... one two three four # bad
>>>
>>>Looks good to me. It expands to multiple words, just as an unquoted
>>>$* would do.
>>
>> But no field splitting is p
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Chris F.A. Johnson" writes:
var=${a[*]} ... one two three four # bad
Looks good to me. It expands to multiple words, just as an unquoted
$* would do.
But no field splitting is performed on the expansion, so why are the
colons lost?
"Chris F.A. Johnson" writes:
>> var=${a[*]} ... one two three four # bad
>
>Looks good to me. It expands to multiple words, just as an unquoted
>$* would do.
But no field splitting is performed on the expansion, so why are the
colons lost?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@lin
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 02:00:26 AM Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Dan Douglas wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone, and welcome to another edition of IBOTD (IFS-bug-of-the-day),
> > featuring everyone's favorite Bourne shell kludge: word-splitting!
> >
> > On today's episode - incons
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Dan Douglas wrote:
Hi everyone, and welcome to another edition of IBOTD (IFS-bug-of-the-day),
featuring everyone's favorite Bourne shell kludge: word-splitting!
On today's episode - inconsistencies within assignments that depend upon
quoting. Though I can't take credit for
Hi everyone, and welcome to another edition of IBOTD (IFS-bug-of-the-day),
featuring everyone's favorite Bourne shell kludge: word-splitting!
On today's episode - inconsistencies within assignments that depend upon
quoting. Though I can't take credit for discovering this -- it was pointed out
t
17 matches
Mail list logo
