On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 9:40 PM Zachary Santer wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 2:44 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> >
> > Why not check the releases -- with patches -- between the two? They're
> > all available via git if you don't want to download tarballs.
>
> Completely fair. I am being a bit lazy.
>
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 2:44 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 7/1/24 8:08 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
> >
> > Would still like to know roughly when these issues were resolved.
>
> Why not check the releases -- with patches -- between the two? They're
> all available via git if you don't want to download t
On 7/1/24 8:08 PM, Zachary Santer wrote:
My repeat-by does elicit both behaviors in bash 4.2. The nested
anonymous pipe (line 17) was necessary to get the diagnostic message.
All this seems to be fixed by the time we get to bash 5.2. I've
attached the repeat-by script, in case it's useful. Would
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 5:06 AM konsolebox wrote:
>
> But then you're allowing multiple processes and pipes to be open at
> the same time, unnecessarily allowing more room for unexpected errors.
> Isn't that worse? It doesn't matter if bash seamlessly allows
> multiple recursion-generated pipes or
On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 5:50 AM Zachary Santer wrote:
> > > Filling an array of paths and then looping over it in a subsequent for
> > > loop wouldn't actually be unreasonable here, considering how many
> > > paths there are. It just feels like bad practice.
> >
> > Why do you think it's a bad pra
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 2:29 PM konsolebox wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 10:23 PM Zachary Santer wrote:
> >
> > The intention here is to report as many error conditions as possible
> > before exiting.
>
> You can print an error message before calling return. Are you
> planning to run more c
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 10:23 PM Zachary Santer wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 4:40 AM konsolebox wrote:
> >
> > You can avoid pipe recursions by storing the output first in an array.
>
> So is this a known issue?
I don't know. I haven't really checked your issues. I just think
avoiding to
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 4:40 AM konsolebox wrote:
>
> You can avoid pipe recursions by storing the output first in an array.
So is this a known issue?
> There's also no need to use an error flag variable. Just make sure
> return calls are chained.
The intention here is to report as many error
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 6:39 AM Zachary Santer wrote:
> command this-file |
> while IFS='' read -r -d '' path; do
> cd -- "${starting_PWD}/${path}"
> if [[ -r this-file ]]; then
> recursive_function "${entry_path}/${path}"
> fi
> # fill arrays
> # there
Was "feature suggestion: ability to expand a set of elements of an
array or characters of a scalar, given their indices"
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:29 PM Zachary Santer wrote:
> ( 2 )
> A script that I've written more recently generates some arrays
> describing everything it needs to do before it
10 matches
Mail list logo
