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

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15634 > unrolled thread

Re: What should be the expected behavior for $_ ?

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What should be the expected behavior for $_ ? Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2019-11-25 09:33 -0500

#15634 — Re: What should be the expected behavior for $_ ?

On 11/25/19 9:21 AM, Siteshwar Vashisht wrote:

>>> It's an interesting question. You want $_ to expand to the last argument
>>> (or last word) of the previous history entry when the shell is interactive,
>>> which is available as !$, instead of the last command executed by the
>>> current shell instance.
>>>
>>> Should the command line know about shell functions and commands executed in
>>> the foreground on its behalf? What should the behavior be in a
>>> non-interactive shell? What do folks think?
> 
> Can we at least document this behavior in man page if we can't change it ?

I think the current language works pretty well:

"Subsequently, expands to the last argument to the previous simple
command executed in the foreground, after expansion."

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

[toc] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web