On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:54:25AM -0400, Eliot Moss wrote:
>On 11/2/2012 10:32 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>On 11/02/2012 05:36 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>
>Can we declare an end to the philosophical flames on how to write uses
>of parameters in bash scripts, please?
I know that I, of all people, sho
On 11/2/2012 10:32 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
On 11/02/2012 05:36 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
Can we declare an end to the philosophical flames
on how to write uses of parameters in bash scripts,
please?
Maybe if we're friendly enough the OP will actually
share what the real problem was and we can o
On 11/02/2012 05:36 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
YMMV when it comes time for maintenance by someone other than the code creator.
Consistency helps reduce cost and reducing company cost helps increase my pay
check.
I disagree. A [emphasis on] *foolish* consistency doesn't do anything to
reduce cost.
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> On 11/1/2012 10:54 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
>>
>> I got in the habbit of always using the "{}" (even if they aren't
>> absolutely necessary) to avoid such issues on general principal.
>
> I don't think it's conducive to productivity to constant
On 11/1/2012 10:54 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I got in the habbit of always using the "{}" (even if they aren't
absolutely necessary) to avoid such issues on general principal.
I don't think it's conducive to productivity to constantly type things
that aren't needed for the simple sake of consisten
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Brian Wilson wrote:
>> > % >${1}, ${2}, etc. Also, you may want to read up on the getopts
>> > command as a % >way to process command line arguments. % Technically,
>> > the {}'s are not needed. You can access them with $1, $2, ... %
>> > "/path/to/$1.save/dir" but
> > % >${1}, ${2}, etc. Also, you may want to read up on the getopts
> > command as a % >way to process command line arguments. % Technically,
> > the {}'s are not needed. You can access them with $1, $2, ... %
> > "/path/to/$1.save/dir" but not "/path/to/$1save/dir" you'd need the
> > {} % (i.
On 10/31/2012 12:40 PM, David T-G wrote:
Andrew, et al --
...and then Andrew DeFaria said...
%
% On 10/31/2012 11:23 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
...
% >${1}, ${2}, etc. Also, you may want to read up on the getopts command as a
% >way to process command line arguments.
% Technically, the {}'s are no
Andrew, et al --
...and then Andrew DeFaria said...
%
% On 10/31/2012 11:23 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
...
% >${1}, ${2}, etc. Also, you may want to read up on the getopts command as a
% >way to process command line arguments.
% Technically, the {}'s are not needed. You can access them with $1, $2,
On 10/31/2012 11:23 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
If you have a script (e.g. foo.sh) and you wish to pass arguments to the
script, your command line should look like "foo.sh arg1 arg2 arg3..." The
number of arguments will be correct and you will be able to access them as
${1}, ${2}, etc. Also, you ma
If you have a script (e.g. foo.sh) and you wish to pass arguments to the
script, your command line should look like "foo.sh arg1 arg2 arg3..." The
number of arguments will be correct and you will be able to access them as
${1}, ${2}, etc. Also, you may want to read up on the getopts command as
I assume you are attempting to script in Bash, therefore I suggest reading:
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.
On 10/30/2012 10:20 AM, chesschi wrote:
> In cygwin, is it possible to pass arguments to a shell script file? I have
> installed the latest cygwin with default packages. I found that argument
> zero ($0) is correct. However, the number of arguments always returns zero
> ($#= 0) and $1, $2... are
13 matches
Mail list logo
