Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15042 > unrolled thread

Documentation discrepancy for interactive-comments option

Started byingy@ingy.net
First post2019-01-10 13:44 -0800
Last post2019-01-20 09:49 -0800
Articles 2 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to gnu.bash.bug


Contents

  Documentation discrepancy for interactive-comments option ingy@ingy.net - 2019-01-10 13:44 -0800
    Re: Documentation discrepancy for interactive-comments option ingy@ingy.net - 2019-01-20 09:49 -0800

#15042 — Documentation discrepancy for interactive-comments option

Fromingy@ingy.net
Date2019-01-10 13:44 -0800
SubjectDocumentation discrepancy for interactive-comments option
Message-ID<b7bd2cc4-0e9c-41c3-bdfe-c1ecc9aa2791@googlegroups.com>
Greetings,

I noticed that many files in the `doc` directory use `interactive_comments` for the `interactive-comments` set option. (`_` vs `-`). I first noticed this using `man bash`.

This seems to be the case from now back to 3.0. I didn't look further back.

Cheers, Ingy

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#15043

Fromingy@ingy.net
Date2019-01-20 09:49 -0800
Message-ID<8846cecb-5d29-43ca-9f30-9c50ecfed6b2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#15042
On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 1:44:55 PM UTC-8, in...@ingy.net wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> I noticed that many files in the `doc` directory use `interactive_comments` for the `interactive-comments` set option. (`_` vs `-`). I first noticed this using `man bash`.
> 
> This seems to be the case from now back to 3.0. I didn't look further back.
> 
> Cheers, Ingy

I see now that `set` uses `interactive-comments` and `shopt` uses `interactive_comments`.

It does seem to be the case that `interactive-comments` is not listed as an option-name for `set` in the bash.1 man page.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | gnu.bash.bug


csiph-web