On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 22:20 Kerin Millar wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:08:25 +0200
> alex xmb ratchev wrote:
>
> > so u mean a $ sign requirement ?
>
> For dereferencing variable identifiers in base#n notation, yes.
>
> > i didnt get the base values , i tried simple one
> > i faced the ' witho
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:08:25 +0200
alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> so u mean a $ sign requirement ?
For dereferencing variable identifiers in base#n notation, yes.
> i didnt get the base values , i tried simple one
> i faced the ' without $ it doesnt work '
I don't fully understand this sentence. An
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 22:08 alex xmb ratchev wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 21:54 Kerin Millar wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 21:29:32 +0200
>> alex xmb ratchev wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 21:14 Kerin Millar wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 01:41:30 +0700
>> > > Robert Elz
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 21:54 Kerin Millar wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 21:29:32 +0200
> alex xmb ratchev wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 21:14 Kerin Millar wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 01:41:30 +0700
> > > Robert Elz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:09:13 +01
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 21:29:32 +0200
alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 21:14 Kerin Millar wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 01:41:30 +0700
> > Robert Elz wrote:
> >
> > > Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:09:13 +0100
> > > From:Kerin Millar
> > > Message-ID: <20
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 21:14 Kerin Millar wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 01:41:30 +0700
> Robert Elz wrote:
>
> > Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:09:13 +0100
> > From:Kerin Millar
> > Message-ID: <20230919180913.bd90c16b908ab7966888f...@plushkava.net>
> >
> > | > | On Tue
On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 01:41:30 +0700
Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:09:13 +0100
> From:Kerin Millar
> Message-ID: <20230919180913.bd90c16b908ab7966888f...@plushkava.net>
>
> | > | On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, at 8:40 AM, Victor Pasko wrote:
> | > | > in
Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:09:13 +0100
From:Kerin Millar
Message-ID: <20230919180913.bd90c16b908ab7966888f...@plushkava.net>
| > | On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, at 8:40 AM, Victor Pasko wrote:
| > | > in let "<>" and $((<>)) constructs all variables should be
| > | >
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 20:00:13 +0700
Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:52:21 +0100
> From:"Kerin Millar"
> Message-ID: <4c2e3d39-0392-41ae-b73c-3e17296a9...@app.fastmail.com>
>
> | On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, at 8:40 AM, Victor Pasko wrote:
> | > Thanks for yo
On 9/19/23 3:40 AM, Victor Pasko wrote:
Thanks for your response.
In my opinion, in let "<>" and $((<>)) constructs all variables should be
evaluated, so that $-sign for them is to be just optional
They are, in places where identifiers are valid. In fact, variable values
are treated as expres
Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:52:21 +0100
From:"Kerin Millar"
Message-ID: <4c2e3d39-0392-41ae-b73c-3e17296a9...@app.fastmail.com>
| On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, at 8:40 AM, Victor Pasko wrote:
| > Thanks for your response.
| > In my opinion, in let "<>" and $((<>)) construct
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, at 8:40 AM, Victor Pasko wrote:
> Thanks for your response.
> In my opinion, in let "<>" and $((<>)) constructs all variables should be
> evaluated, so that $-sign for them is to be just optional
You haven't thought this through. It would amount to an egregious break of
back
Thanks for your response.
In my opinion, in let "<>" and $((<>)) constructs all variables should be
evaluated, so that $-sign for them is to be just optional
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 2:28 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 9/17/23 3:59 PM, Victor Pasko wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could you please take a look
On 9/17/23 3:59 PM, Victor Pasko wrote:
Hi,
Could you please take a look at attached bug.bash.
Maybe, not all math combinations were presented there or the test has
duplications somehow.
Here are results of several runs with test# as argument
All the examples use the base#number syntax, where
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023 04:56:18 +0200
alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 04:03 Kerin Millar wrote:
>
> > Hi Victor,
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, at 8:59 PM, Victor Pasko wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Could you please take a look at attached bug.bash.
> > >
> > > Maybe, not all math com
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, 04:03 Kerin Millar wrote:
> Hi Victor,
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, at 8:59 PM, Victor Pasko wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could you please take a look at attached bug.bash.
> >
> > Maybe, not all math combinations were presented there or the test has
> > duplications somehow.
> > Here
Hi Victor,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, at 8:59 PM, Victor Pasko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please take a look at attached bug.bash.
>
> Maybe, not all math combinations were presented there or the test has
> duplications somehow.
> Here are results of several runs with test# as argument
>
>
> *% bash --v
Hi,
Could you please take a look at attached bug.bash.
Maybe, not all math combinations were presented there or the test has
duplications somehow.
Here are results of several runs with test# as argument
*% bash --version*GNU bash, version 5.2.15(3)-release (x86_64-pc-cygwin)
Good test without
18 matches
Mail list logo
