> On 1/27/16 1:18 PM, Mathieu Patenaude wrote:
> >
> > When using "named" file descriptors inside a function, the file descriptors
> > are not automatically un-linked when the function returns, but when using
> > regular "numbered" file descriptors they are automatically "destroyed".
>
> Yes. Th
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Geir Hauge wrote:
...
> though printf should be preferred over echo:
>
> while read -r line; do printf '%s\n' "$line"; done < test.txt
>
I've never read about using printf in preference to echo. Why is that? I
have used it myself in special cases, such a
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:34 PM, John McKown
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Geir Hauge wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>> though printf should be preferred over echo:
>>
>> while read -r line; do printf '%s\n' "$line"; done < test.txt
>>
>
> I've never read about using printf in preference t
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Pierre Gaston
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:34 PM, John McKown > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Geir Hauge wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> though printf should be preferred over echo:
>>>
>>> while read -r line; do printf '%s\n' "$line"; d
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 06:49:51AM -0500, John McKown wrote:
> ???Ah. Thanks. I only use BASH and the GNU infrastructure, so I have never
> run into that problem. I think I'll change my habits, just in case I run
> across a system which doesn't have it (especially in my scripts)
Every implementati
2016-04-13 08:10:15 +0200, Geir Hauge:
[...]
> while read -r line; do echo "$line"; done < test.txt
>
> though printf should be preferred over echo:
>
> while read -r line; do printf '%s\n' "$line"; done < test.txt
[...]
Actually, you also need to empty $IFS
while IFS= read -r line; do
On 4/12/16 9:49 PM, Seiichi Ishitsuka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I found memory leak in case of using "HISTCONTOL=erasedups" in bash-4.2.
Thanks for the report. This will be fixed in the next release of bash.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:43:42PM +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2016-04-13 08:10:15 +0200, Geir Hauge:
> [...]
> > while read -r line; do echo "$line"; done < test.txt
> >
> > though printf should be preferred over echo:
> >
> > while read -r line; do printf '%s\n' "$line"; done < te
On 4/13/16 1:54 AM, George Caswell wrote:
> Personally, I don't think it makes sense for a redirection on a command to
> persist beyond the scope of that command. A redirection with a
> dynamically-assigned fd is basically equivalent to a redirection to a
> numbered fd.
Then why have it? There's
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 4/13/16 1:54 AM, George Caswell wrote:
>
> > Personally, I don't think it makes sense for a redirection on a command
> to
> > persist beyond the scope of that command. A redirection with a
> > dynamically-assigned fd is basically equivalent
Hello everybody,
I would like to ask if it is possible to disable expanding asterisk when it
selects all entries ?
`$ rm * .jpg` with a mistaken space between asterisk and .jpg will delete
everything in your home directory or in the entire disk.
In my opinion, when the user asks to select "every
> On 4/13/16 1:54 AM, George Caswell wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think it makes sense for a redirection on a command to
> > persist beyond the scope of that command. A redirection with a
> > dynamically-assigned fd is basically equivalent to a redirection to a
> > numbered fd.
>
> Then why have
2016-04-13 08:55:16 -0400, Greg Wooledge:
[...]
> > And if you want to keep eventual spurious characters after the
> > last NL character in the file:
> >
> > while IFS= read -r line; do printf '%s\n' "$line"; done < test.txt
> > [ -z "$line" ] || printf %s "$line"
>
> Another way to write that is
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:28:02PM +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2016-04-13 08:55:16 -0400, Greg Wooledge:
> [...]
> > > And if you want to keep eventual spurious characters after the
> > > last NL character in the file:
> > >
> > > while IFS= read -r line; do printf '%s\n' "$line"; done < tes
On 4/13/16 9:34 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> For me the value is in 1) not hard coding the number and 2) being able to
> use more explicit names (eg "logfile" rather than "3"), nothing more.
If you limit the effects to those two, it's not a compelling feature to
add. In practice, the first is not
Anis ELLEUCH wrote:
> I would like to ask if it is possible to disable expanding asterisk when it
> selects all entries ?
You ask if it is possible and the answer is no it is not possible.
Because the shell expands the "*" before it passes the result as
arguments to the rm command. The rm command
On 13 Apr 2016 11:23, Anis ELLEUCH wrote:
> I would like to ask if it is possible to disable expanding asterisk when it
> selects all entries ?
>
> `$ rm * .jpg` with a mistaken space between asterisk and .jpg will delete
> everything in your home directory or in the entire disk.
>
> In my opinio
17 matches
Mail list logo
