Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: Chet Ramey Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug Subject: Re: Bash 4.4 beta - parameter transformation - parameter attributes Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:41:14 -0500 Lines: 22 Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: chet.ramey@case.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1446561684 31697 208.118.235.17 (3 Nov 2015 14:41:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu Cc: chet.ramey@case.edu To: Dennis Williamson , "bug-bash@gnu.org" Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.5638C78B.02DE, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2015-08-12 04:07:17, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: c0789c20778cc2a178cec6690be32917 X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mpv4-2015.case.edu) X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.5638C78C.014B,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2015-08-12 04:07:17, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 68c2f04c963d93e1adaed9851563a922 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 129.22.103.195 X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:11821 On 11/2/15 7:36 PM, Dennis Williamson wrote: > I guess the point I'm trying to get to is that I don't see > how "${colors[*]@a}" or "${colors@A}" are useful whereas their opposites > are ("${colors@a}" and "${colors[*]@A}") regardless of whether the > parameter is an array or scalar. By the way, subscripting using "@" with > these transformations also doesn't seem to be useful. > > It may be that this is not a matter for changing the Bash code or > documentation but that it's necessary to consider these behaviors when > making good coding practice choices. Consistency is important. All the operators accept the same set of operands on the lhs, even if some combinations are not really useful. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/