>> There is a big difference between
>>
>> $ a=";"
>>
>> and
>>
>> $ a=;
> And for the VERY ignorant what is the difference
In the second case the unescaped semi-colon is a separator totally
unrelated to the assignment, which has no value at all. The variable
is assigned an empty string.
On 08/20/2010 07:12 AM, lxnf9...@comcast.net wrote:
>> There is a big difference between
>>
>> $ a=";"
>>
>> and
>>
>> $ a=;
>>
>> Andreas.
>>
>>
>
> And for the VERY ignorant what is the difference
a=';' assigns the value ";" to $a. a=; assigns the empty string to a,
because the ; is the metach
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Marc Herbert writes:
Probably result in some error; I do not really care in this initial
stage. In any case it should not perform any *implicit* (and
thus confusing) quoting.
There is no quoting, the shell just doesn't split into words, which
doesn
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Since inconsistency is basically "not the same rule
> everywhere", it typically shows in (good) documentation. Indeed:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06
> 2.6 Word Expansions
> Not all ex
Since inconsistency is basically "not the same rule
everywhere", it typically shows in (good) documentation. Indeed:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06
2.6 Word Expansions
Not all expansions are performed on every word, as explained in the
fo
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:53:25PM +0100, Marc Herbert wrote:
>
> Sorry but I am not interested at all in how the current implementation
> works. I am only wondering why it was *designed* like this.
>
> Try to remove your expert hat for one second and take the stance of
> some developer new to th
Marc Herbert writes:
> Sorry but I am not interested at all in how the current implementation
> works. I am only wondering why it was *designed* like this.
A variable can only contain a single string of characters. There is
nothing at all to split.
> "Everything makes sense" is a nice feature
Le 18/08/2010 12:14, Andreas Schwab a écrit :
> Marc Herbert writes:
>> In any case it should not perform any *implicit* (and
>> thus confusing) quoting.
>
> There is no quoting, the shell just doesn't split into words,
I know but it looks like quoting, because quoting is how you prevent
word sp
Marc Herbert writes:
> Probably result in some error; I do not really care in this initial
> stage. In any case it should not perform any *implicit* (and
> thus confusing) quoting.
There is no quoting, the shell just doesn't split into words, which
doesn't make any sense in an assignment.
> Quo
> What should a=* or a=$(echo 1 2) do?
> Assign only the first file or just 1 to a? or result in an error?
Probably result in some error; I do not really care in this initial
stage. In any case it should not perform any *implicit* (and
thus confusing) quoting.
> This hardly seem more consistent
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Compare:
>
> for a in "$(echo 1 2)"; do echo "x${a}x"; done
> x1 2x
> for a in $(echo 1 2) ; do echo "x${a}x"; done
> x1x
> x2x
>
> a="$(echo 1 2)"; echo "x${a}x"
> x1 2x
> a=$(echo 1 2); echo "x${a}x"
> x1 2x
>
>
>
> Shell quoting
Marc Herbert writes:
>for a in $(echo 1 2) ; do echo "x${a}x"; done
This applies word splitting on the expansion of $(echo 1 2).
> a=$(echo 1 2); echo "x${a}x"
This doesn't.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5
Compare:
for a in "$(echo 1 2)"; do echo "x${a}x"; done
x1 2x
for a in $(echo 1 2) ; do echo "x${a}x"; done
x1x
x2x
a="$(echo 1 2)"; echo "x${a}x"
x1 2x
a=$(echo 1 2); echo "x${a}x"
x1 2x
Shell quoting is difficult enough; why is such an inconsistency making
it even more confusi
13 matches
Mail list logo
