On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:53:48 +0300, Pierre Gaston
wrote:
> Missing quotes around [ ] can be nasty eg
>
> #!/bin/bash
> shopt -s nullglob # sounds a good idea!
> .
> .
> i=0
> while read a[i++]; do
> echo "${a[i]}" # why oh why nothing is printed!
> done <<< "hello"
It seems to me th
Pierre is referring to the fact that [i++] is evaluated as a glob by
the shell, the reason it doesn't work is because $i is postincremented
instead of preincremented. You can see what he means here:
$ shopt -u nullglob
$ i=0
$ while read a[++i]; do
> echo "${a[i]}"
> done <<< hello
hello
$ sho
On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:56:36 +0800, Chris Down wrote:
> Pierre is referring to the fact that [i++] is evaluated as a glob by
> the shell, the reason it doesn't work is because $i is postincremented
> instead of preincremented. You can see what he means here:
>
> $ shopt -u nullglob
> $ i=0
> $ w
That's... why I said he was unintentionally doing postincrement...
On 30 May 2013 17:04, Davide Brini wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:56:36 +0800, Chris Down wrote:
>
>> Pierre is referring to the fact that [i++] is evaluated as a glob by
>> the shell, the reason it doesn't work is because $i is
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Davide Brini wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:56:36 +0800, Chris Down wrote:
>
>> Pierre is referring to the fact that [i++] is evaluated as a glob by
>> the shell, the reason it doesn't work is because $i is postincremented
>> instead of preincremented. You can s
On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:06:08 +0800, Chris Down wrote:
> That's... why I said he was unintentionally doing postincrement...
Doh! Indeed you said that. Apologies for reading too fast.
--
D.
Pierre Gaston wrote:
> ok sorry for not having try my example, my point is that it was not
> assigning to a[0] because of the nullglob and that this one can be
> hard to spot
---
Generally don't feel good about that op except in very narrow
circumstances...for exactly those types of reasons...w
On 30 May 2013 17:59, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Generally don't feel good about that op except in very narrow
> circumstances...for exactly those types of reasons...what you
> can't see CAN hurt you! ;-)
It doesn't have anything to do with the operator, it's to do with the
usage of square brackets t
Chris Down wrote:
> On 30 May 2013 17:59, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Generally don't feel good about that op except in very narrow
>> circumstances...for exactly those types of reasons...what you
>> can't see CAN hurt you! ;-)
>
> It doesn't have anything to do with the operator, it's to do with t
