Le 29/03/2010 14:50, Thomas Bartosik a écrit :
> Please don't get me wrong. I have no problem in understanding the
> man page this way, but I do think it is inconsistent.
It's a pity that square brackets are used both in the language itself
and in its syntactic definitions but this is bound to h
Don't get me wrong, I am a full time bash script programmer and I do know how
man pages (and their syntax) look like. I use this syntax myself in every
usage() I write...
Still I think it is misleading.
I simply cannot see how a newb can tell the difference between a bracket that's
part of the
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:22:35PM +0200, Thomas Bartosik wrote:
> Well OK, I understand. Still I think there should be a difference in the man
> page when it comes to brackets. When talking about arrays, the brackets are
> NOT an option but mandatory.
That's correct. Referencing a specific eleme
Well OK, I understand. Still I think there should be a difference in the man
page when it comes to brackets. When talking about arrays, the brackets are NOT
an option but mandatory.
(and it might be me being uneducated, but how to you print out the decimal
equivalent of binary 11 without using b
On 3/22/10 9:13 AM, tbart...@gmx-topmail.de wrote:
> Bash Version: 4.0
> Patch Level: 35
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
> The man page seems to be wrong regarding the handling of numbers with
> different bases. It states one has to use [base#]n although it seems to be
> [base#n]
