Re: FWD: About Bash Script

On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, Mart Frauenlob wrote: > > Original Message > > Subject:   About Bash Script > > Date:      Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:39:25 -0600 > > From:      Curt > > To:        mart.frauen...@chello.at > > Hi Mart- > > > I saw you were helping another guy with a bash script

Re: FWD: About Bash Script

Here's what I have but i'm getting some errors #!/bin/bash if ! (-e b.txt); then mv a.txt b.txt exit fi #The previous commands checks to see if b.txt is NOT already there, if NOT, it renames a.txt to b.txt #If the script gets here, b.txt EXISTS.. # does_exist is a recursive

Re: FWD: About Bash Script

Thanks Greg for the resource material! I'm making changes now

Re: FWD: About Bash Script

Thanks pk! That's the same thin Greg told me. #!/bin/bash if [! -e b.txt]; then mv a.txt b.txt exit fi #The previous commands checks to see if b.txt is NOT already there, if NOT, it renames a.txt to b.txt #If the script gets here, b.txt EXISTS.. # does_exist is a recursive fu

Re: FWD: About Bash Script

I actually re-wrote it and got it working. Thanks for the suggested reading Mart, i'll definitely look those over. Thanks for all the help!

exit status question

Not exactly sure if this is a bug. But I don't understand why only the first time running ((i++)) returns an error exit status. Here's my script: #! /bin/bash echo $BASH_VERSION ${BASH_VERSINFO[5]} set -x #set -e i=0 ((i++)) echo $? ((i++)) echo $? And here's what the output looks like: 4.1.7

Re: exit status question

11:30am Eric Blake said: On 12/20/2010 11:25 AM, Curtis Doty wrote: Not exactly sure if this is a bug. But I don't understand why only the first time running ((i++)) returns an error exit status. Because it follows the same semantics as 'expr', where status 1 is reserved for a

read into array Segfaults

I did a stupid thing. Tried to read into an array--which is indexed--but the variable is already an associative array. declare -A foo read -a foo <

Re: read into array Segfaults

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Chet Ramey wrote: declare -A foo read -a foo << Yes. It certainly shouldn't crash the shell. Try the attached patch and let me know that it works for you. Thanks for the report. Yep, thanks. Verified no segfault; only the error. Tested on 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 in F

process substitution in PROMPT_COMMAND

I've recently refactored my PROMPT_COMMAND function to avoid superfluous fork()s. In the body of the function, what was once this line: local jobcount=$(jobs |wc -l) is now this: local job jobcount=0 while read job do ((jobcount++)) done < <(jobs) This works fine on bash 4. However,

Re: process substitution in PROMPT_COMMAND

On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, Chet Ramey wrote: On 8/7/11 6:00 PM, Curtis Doty wrote: local job jobcount=0 while read job do ((jobcount++)) done < <(jobs) As you suspect, the problem is with this part of the function. It doesn't really have anything to do with PROMPT_COMMAND, t

test -nt not sane

Or maybe I'm not groking. When one compares against a b0rk symlink, the result of -nt (newer than) is true--when it isn't! mkdir directory ln -s noexist symlink touch -hr directory symlink test directory -nt symlink &&echo yes ||echo no They have identical mtimes (as set by touch)--i.e

no apostrophe allowed in comment

When the comment is inside of a substituted process. #! /bin/bash -ex # tee >( # this is nifty echo hi there ) The above works. Whereas the below fails. #! /bin/bash -ex # tee >( # ain't this nifty echo hi there ) It burps thusly: ./foo.sh: line 7: bad substit