On 5/20/11 12:10 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 09:33 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>>> Well, that's rather all over the place, but yes, it does seem like bash
>>> was the buggiest of the lot, compared to other shells. Interactively, I
>>> tested:
>>>
>>> readonly x=1
>>> case 1 in $((x++)) ) echo
On 05/20/2011 09:33 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> Well, that's rather all over the place, but yes, it does seem like bash
>> was the buggiest of the lot, compared to other shells. Interactively, I
>> tested:
>>
>> readonly x=1
>> case 1 in $((x++)) ) echo hi1 ;; *) echo hi2; esac
>> echo $x.$?
>>
>> ba
On 5/19/11 6:09 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding bug-bash]
>
> On 05/16/2011 07:23 PM, Wayne Pollock wrote:
>> (While cleaning up the standard for case statement, consider that it is
>> currently
>> unspecified what should happen if an error occurs during the expansion of the
>> patterns; as expan
[adding bug-bash]
On 05/16/2011 07:23 PM, Wayne Pollock wrote:
> (While cleaning up the standard for case statement, consider that it is
> currently
> unspecified what should happen if an error occurs during the expansion of the
> patterns; as expansions may have side-effects, when an error occur
