On 02/27/12 04:11, Dan Douglas wrote:
> "If word is unquoted, all lines of the here-document are subjected to
> parameter expansion, command substitution, and arithmetic expansion."
>
> No pathname expansion.
That section of manual doesn't specifically include word splitting nor
pathname expans
On Monday, February 27, 2012 02:07:25 PM Davide Baldini wrote:
> FROM Davide Baldini
>
> On 02/27/12 04:11, Dan Douglas wrote:
> > "If word is unquoted, all lines of the here-document are subjected to
> > parameter expansion, command substitution, and arithmetic expansion."
> >
> > No pathname ex
On 2/27/12 8:07 AM, Davide Baldini wrote:
>> "If word is unquoted, all lines of the here-document are subjected to
>> parameter expansion, command substitution, and arithmetic expansion."
>>
>> No pathname expansion.
>
> That section of manual doesn't specifically include word splitting nor
> pa
On 02/27/2012 01:50 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
I don't mean this in a snarky way, but shell man pages are
historically in the class of docs that you really need to read over
and over again. There are a few books on shell programming, most of
them not very good, but I personally have read the bash
On 02/27/12 07:26, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> The manual seems quite clear:
> "If word is unquoted, all lines of the here-document are subjected to
> parameter expansion, command substitution, and arithmetic
> expansion. In the latter case, the character sequence \ is
> ignored, and \ must be used
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 1:26 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Davide Baldini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/27/12 05:04, DJ Mills wrote:
Think of regular here-doc (with an unquoted word) as being treated the
same
On 2/27/2012 1:26 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Davide Baldini
wrote:
On 02/27/12 05:04, DJ Mills wrote:
Think of regular here-doc (with an unquoted word) as being treated the
same way as a double-quoted string
Thank you Mills, of course I can understand it _now_
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Davide Baldini
wrote:
> On 02/27/12 05:04, DJ Mills wrote:
>> Think of regular here-doc (with an unquoted word) as being treated the
>> same way as a double-quoted string
>
> Thank you Mills, of course I can understand it _now_, after having hit
> the problem, but
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 04:03:34 AM Davide Baldini wrote:
>> Is this expected? Standing at the debian's man bash, variables inside
>> 'here document' are supposed to expand with no special exceptions
>> and undergo word
On 02/27/12 05:04, DJ Mills wrote:
> Think of regular here-doc (with an unquoted word) as being treated the
> same way as a double-quoted string
Thank you Mills, of course I can understand it _now_, after having hit
the problem, but my point is different: the description of a program's
details sho
On Monday, February 27, 2012 04:03:34 AM Davide Baldini wrote:
> Is this expected? Standing at the debian's man bash, variables inside
> 'here document' are supposed to expand with no special exceptions
> and undergo word splitting and pathname expansion.
"If word is unquoted, al
11 matches
Mail list logo
