On 1/27/21 4:07 AM, pepa65 wrote:
On 27/01/2021 14.49, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
That's why your .? glob doesn't match the .. pathname. Normally,
GLOBIGNORE isn't set.
After unsetting GLOBIGNORE:
That doesn't unset GLOBIGNORE.
$ declare -p GLOBIGNORE
declare -x GLOBIGNORE=""
Depending o
On 27/01/2021 14.49, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
> That's why your .? glob doesn't match the .. pathname. Normally,
> GLOBIGNORE isn't set.
After unsetting GLOBIGNORE:
$ declare -p GLOBIGNORE
declare -x GLOBIGNORE=""
$ shopt -u extglob
$ echo @(?|.?)
-bash: syntax error near unexpected token `('
$
On 27/01/2021 07:38, pepa65 wrote:
On 27/01/2021 14.30, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
Note that declare -p BASH_VERSION would report the version of bash that
you're currently running interactively.
$ declare -p BASH_VERSION
declare -- BASH_VERSION="5.0.17(1)-release"
Does declare -p GLOBIGNORE s
On 27/01/2021 14.30, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
> Note that declare -p BASH_VERSION would report the version of bash that
> you're currently running interactively.
$ declare -p BASH_VERSION
declare -- BASH_VERSION="5.0.17(1)-release"
> Does declare -p GLOBIGNORE show that the variable is set? Does
On 27/01/2021 06:50, pepa65 wrote:
On 27/01/2021 04.00, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1)
in Ubuntu 20.04:-
$ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
. .. a .b
$ cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS \n \l
$ bash --version
GNU
On 27/01/2021 04.00, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
> One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1)
> in Ubuntu 20.04:-
>
> $ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
> . .. a .b
$ cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS \n \l
$ bash --version
GNU bash, version 5.0.17(1)-releas
On 2021/01/26 09:08, Chet Ramey wrote:
That's the real question: whether or not `.' should match @(?|.?), even
when dotglob is enabled (and yes, both patterns have to be in there). There
isn't really any other. Since it doesn't match ? when dotglob is enabled,
there's an obvious inconsistency th
On 1/26/21 4:00 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1) in
Ubuntu 20.04:-
$ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
. .. a .b
Note that '.' is said to be among the pathnames matched. I don't see how
this can possibly be the c
On 26/01/2021 21:13, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 1/26/21 4:00 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
One example is that gregrwm claims the following outcome for 5.0.17(1)
in Ubuntu 20.04:-
$ echo @(?|.?) #. and .. are included
. .. a .b
Note that '.' is said to be among the pathnames matched. I d
On 26/01/2021 20:49, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 1/26/21 3:27 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
I'm still worried about some of the curious results shown by your
original post but I haven't had a chance to test the same platforms yet.
Don't be. CentOS is running a version of bash-4.2 (without even all o
On 1/26/21 2:34 PM, gregrwm wrote:
you're calling .. an explicit match to .?
Yes: the leading `.' is explicitly included.
i'd interpret explicit match to mean .. wouldn't match anything other than
itself (notwithstanding it's been otherwise for over a decade)
That's not a glob pattern. The
On 1/26/21 3:27 PM, k...@plushkava.net wrote:
I'm still worried about some of the curious results shown by your original
post but I haven't had a chance to test the same platforms yet.
Don't be. CentOS is running a version of bash-4.2 (without even all of the
patches applied); that version wa
On 26/01/2021 19:34, gregrwm wrote:
. and .. are excluded from @(?|.?) in
bash 4.2.46(2)-release (CentOS 7.8), but are included in
bash 4.4.19(1)-release (CentOS 8.2) and
bash 5.0.17(1)-release (Ubuntu 20.04/focal).
According to the manual, "[t]he fil
>
> > . and .. are excluded from @(?|.?) in
> > bash 4.2.46(2)-release (CentOS 7.8), but are included in
> > bash 4.4.19(1)-release (CentOS 8.2) and
> > bash 5.0.17(1)-release (Ubuntu 20.04/focal).
>
According to the manual, "[t]he filenames ‘.’ and ‘..’ must al
On 1/25/21 4:36 PM, gregrwm wrote:
Bash Version: 5.0
Patch Level: 17
Release Status: release
Description:
. and .. are excluded from @(?|.?) in
bash 4.2.46(2)-release (CentOS 7.8), but are included in
bash 4.4.19(1)-release (CentOS 8.2) and
bash 5.0.17(1)-rel
On 26/01/2021 13:04, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
On Jan 26, 2021, at 12:51 AM, ""
wrote:
On 25/01/2021 21:36, gregrwm wrote:
is this change in functionality a regression, a "fix", or a new
feature?
is there any option to exclude them?
in all 3, .. is included in .?
> On Jan 26, 2021, at 12:51 AM, ""
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/01/2021 21:36, gregrwm wrote:
>>
>> is this change in functionality a regression, a "fix", or a new
>> feature?
>> is there any option to exclude them?
>> in all 3, .. is included in .?
>
> This seems to be as expe
On 25/01/2021 21:36, gregrwm wrote:
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/build/bash-a6qmCk/bash-5.0=.
-fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall
-Wno-pare
sorry, typo:
and in the more recent versions it's a different inconsistency, . is
excluded from ? ?? but included in @(?|.?)
should be:
and in the more recent versions it's a different inconsistency, . is
excluded from ? .? but included in @(?|.?)
tho as i said that's a tad askew from...
On Mon
19 matches
Mail list logo
