Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-09-17 Thread Dan Douglas
On Saturday, April 06, 2013 03:48:55 AM Dan Douglas wrote: > Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which makes me > think this test should say "no": > > x=\\x; if [[ x == $x ]]; then echo yes; else echo no; fi > Here's more data. Some permutations of escaped and quoted

Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-04-06 Thread Dan Douglas
On Saturday, April 06, 2013 09:37:44 PM Chet Ramey wrote: > On 4/6/13 4:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote: > > I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which > > interpretation is > > correct. Assuming it's unspecified. > > > > Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which

Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-04-06 Thread Chet Ramey
On 4/6/13 9:59 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > In bash, the expansion differs when in [[ ... ]]: > > $ x=\\x; if [[ x == $x ]]; then echo yes; else echo no; fi > yes > $ x=\\x; if [ x == $x ]; then echo yes; else echo no; fi > no OK. The [[ conditional command does pattern matching. The [ (

Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-04-06 Thread Chris F.A. Johnson
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Chet Ramey wrote: On 4/6/13 4:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote: I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which interpretation is correct. Assuming it's unspecified. Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which makes me think this test should say "n

Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-04-06 Thread Chet Ramey
On 4/6/13 4:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote: > I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which interpretation is > correct. Assuming it's unspecified. > > Bash (4.2.45) uniquely does interpret such escapes for [[, which makes me > think this test should say "no": > > x=\\x; if [[ x ==

Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-04-06 Thread Dan Douglas
On Saturday, April 06, 2013 09:24:52 PM Chris Down wrote: > On 2013-04-06 07:01, Eric Blake wrote: > > > bb: no > > > jsh: no > > > > I haven't heard of these two, but they are also bugs. > > I assume bb is busybox ash. > > Chris It's typically a symlink to busybox yes, which calls the shell.

Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-04-06 Thread Chris Down
On 2013-04-06 07:01, Eric Blake wrote: > > bb: no > > jsh: no > > I haven't heard of these two, but they are also bugs. I assume bb is busybox ash. Chris pgppwY6f9jNaE.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Interpretation of escapes in expansions in pattern matching contexts

2013-04-06 Thread Eric Blake
On 04/06/2013 02:48 AM, Dan Douglas wrote: > I couldn't find anything obvious in POSIX that implies which interpretation is > correct. Assuming it's unspecified. Correct - POSIX does not specify [[ at all, so any behavior inside [[ is unspecified. > > However, ksh93 (AJM 93v- 2013-03-17) is uniq