Re: Bash manual - possible minor formatting issue

On 11/11/23 3:05 PM, Greg wrote: Hello, I think there may be a minor formatting issue in the set​ builtin section of the Bash manual (https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/The-Set-Builtin.html). In the description of the "x​" option, the second "for" in the first sentence is forma

Re: Bash manual - possible minor formatting issue

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 08:05:18PM +, Greg wrote: > Hello, > > I think there may be a minor formatting issue in the set​ builtin section of > the Bash manual > (https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/The-Set-Builtin.html). In > the description of the "x​" option, the second "for

Re: Bash Manual section 6.7 Arrays should mention array append notation

On 3/24/22 5:15 PM, Zachary Santer wrote: Thank you. Also, "append to a array variable" should be "append to an array variable". Thanks. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc.

Re: Bash Manual section 6.7 Arrays should mention array append notation

Thank you. Also, "append to a array variable" should be "append to an array variable". Regards, Zack On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 3:46 PM Chet Ramey wrote: > On 3/24/22 11:12 AM, Zachary Santer wrote: > > I'm consulting the online manual > >

Re: Bash Manual section 6.7 Arrays should mention array append notation

On 3/24/22 11:12 AM, Zachary Santer wrote: I'm consulting the online manual , so if you're looking for a version number, that would be 5.1. I just now looked at doc/bash.pdf in the git repo on Savannah. No info on appending is presen

Re: Bash Manual section 6.7 Arrays should mention array append notation

Neither of Mr. Wooledge's responses made it into my inbox, and they're not in my spam folder, either. I only saw them upon examining the bug-bash Archives, wondering if what I was emailing in was getting there. Thank you, sir, and pardon my misunderstanding. Regards, Zack On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at

Re: Bash Manual section 6.7 Arrays should mention array append notation

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:12:25AM -0400, Zachary Santer wrote: > I'm consulting the online manual > , so if > you're looking for a version number, that would be 5.1. > > I just now looked at doc/bash.pdf in the git repo on Savannah. N

Re: Bash Manual section 6.7 Arrays should mention array append notation

I'm consulting the online manual , so if you're looking for a version number, that would be 5.1. I just now looked at doc/bash.pdf in the git repo on Savannah. No info on appending is present under bash-5.2-testing or devel. Regards.

Re: Bash Manual section 6.7 Arrays should mention array append notation

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:55:15AM -0500, Zachary Santer wrote: > Talking about the lines with "+=", obviously. I only learned I could > do this when I found it in existing code. It's mentioned in the PARAMETERS section: uated. When += is applied to an array variable using compound assig

Re: bash manual on interactive shell

On 2021-12-13 at 11:23 +, Kerin Millar wrote: > You mentioned being confused by how the and's and or's combine. The > wording of the bash man page seems marginally less ambiguous in that > regard, partly owing to its sparse use of the comma. > > "An interactive shell is one started without non

Re: bash manual on interactive shell

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 23:51:22 -0800 Mallika wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for the quick response! And for clearing up what 'option arguments' > means. > > I'm not sure I understood the last bit, though > >Something like "with only option arguments" could easily be misunderstood > as "with one or more

Re: bash manual on interactive shell

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 8:31 AM Mallika wrote: > "An interactive shell is one started without non-option arguments, unles*s* > -s is specified, without specifying the -c option, and whose input and > error output are both connected to terminals (as determined by isatty(3)), or > one started with

Re: bash manual on interactive shell

Or maybe "started without non-option arguments, i.e. without a command or filename"? On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:51 PM Mallika wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for the quick response! And for clearing up what 'option arguments' > means. > > I'm not sure I understood the last bit, though > >Something like

Re: bash manual on interactive shell

Hi! Thanks for the quick response! And for clearing up what 'option arguments' means. I'm not sure I understood the last bit, though >Something like "with only option arguments" could easily be misunderstood as "with one or more option arguments". Are you saying that the 'only' could be easily i

Re: bash manual on interactive shell

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021, at 9:03 PM, Mallika wrote: > I'm a little confused about how all the and's and or's combine (I suppose > it's obvious if you're a little more familiar with the material - but it > would be great if it were possible to express this by indentation), It's a relatively confusing

Re: Bash manual bug : redundant info

On 6/29/20 6:27 AM, 홍홍 wrote: > In 4.3.2 The Shopt Builtin, > > The statement below appears twice redundantly. > > The return status when listing options is zero if all optnames are enabled, > non-zero otherwise. When setting or unsetting options, the return status is > zero unless an optname i

Re: Bash Manual inconsistency regarding PS* in which expansions apply

On 3/12/17 5:14 PM, Grisha Levit wrote: > The manual says [1]: > > In addition, the following table describes the special characters which > can > appear in the prompt variables PS1 to PS4: > > ..which misses PS0 (and seems to imply that PS3 gets expanded in this > fashion as well). > >

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On 3/11/10 9:10 AM, Robert Cratchit wrote: > On page > > http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html#Bash-Startup-Files > > Could this sentence: > > "An interactive shell is one started without non-option arguments, > unless -sis specified, without specifying the > -c option, and whose

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Pierre Gaston wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Ken Irving wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:57:41AM +0200, Pierre Gaston wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ken Irving >> wrote: >> > >> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:16:05AM +, Ma

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Ken Irving wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:57:41AM +0200, Pierre Gaston wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ken Irving > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:16:05AM +, Marc Herbert wrote: > > > > >> Could this sentence: > > > > >> > > >

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:57:41AM +0200, Pierre Gaston wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ken Irving wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:16:05AM +, Marc Herbert wrote: > > > >> Could this sentence: > > > >> > > > >> "An interactive shell is one started without non-option argument

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ken Irving wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:16:05AM +, Marc Herbert wrote: > > >> Could this sentence: > > >> > > >> "An interactive shell is one started without non-option arguments, > > >> unless -sis specified, without specifying the > > >> -c option, a

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:50:26AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:16:05AM +, Marc Herbert wrote: > > >> Could this sentence: > > >> > > >> "An interactive shell is one started without non-option arguments, > > >> unless -sis specified, without specifying the > > >> -c opt

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:16:05AM +, Marc Herbert wrote: > >> Could this sentence: > >> > >> "An interactive shell is one started without non-option arguments, > >> unless -sis specified, without specifying the > >> -c option, and whose input and error output are both connected to terminals >

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

>> Could this sentence: >> >> "An interactive shell is one started without non-option arguments, >> unless -sis specified, without specifying the >> -c option, and whose input and error output are both connected to terminals >> (as determined by isatty(3)), or one started with the -i option. " >> >

Re: Bash manual - interactive shell definition

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:10:11AM -0500, Robert Cratchit wrote: > On page > > http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html#Bash-Startup-Files > > Could this sentence: > > "An interactive shell is one started without non-option arguments, > unless -sis specified, without specifying the >

Re: Bash manual doesn't document -n (test syntax) option

> Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]: > Machine: x86_64 > OS: linux-gnu > Compiler: gcc > Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='x86_64' > -DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='x86_64-pc-linux-gnu' > -DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/l

Re: bash manual

OK, Thank You, VML. Chet Ramey wrote: V. Mark Lehky wrote: Hi, I can't find this text in my manual. Is there a more recent version somewhere than ? Sure. The 2.05b manual is over four years old. Try http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/bas

Re: bash manual

V. Mark Lehky wrote: > Hi, > > I can't find this text in my manual. Is there a more recent version > somewhere than ? Sure. The 2.05b manual is over four years old. Try http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/bash/bashref.html for the current (bash

Re: bash manual

Hi, I can't find this text in my manual. Is there a more recent version somewhere than ? So, since 'export -f' apparently does the same thing as 'declare -xf', I'm just wondering why have two commands do the same thing? Or did I interpret

Re: bash manual

V. Mark Lehky wrote: > Hi, > > This is in reference to "Edition 2.5b, last updated 15 July 2002, of The > GNU Bash Reference Manual". > > Please, please, please, for the sake of future generations, make the > following addition in two spots in the next release of the manual. I > just spent like t