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


Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15503 > unrolled thread

Re: Command grouping

Started byChet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
First post2019-10-12 10:42 -0400
Last post2019-10-12 10:42 -0400
Articles 1 — 1 participant

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: Command grouping Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2019-10-12 10:42 -0400

#15503 — Re: Command grouping

FromChet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
Date2019-10-12 10:42 -0400
SubjectRe: Command grouping
Message-ID<mailman.398.1570891354.9715.bug-bash@gnu.org>
On 10/12/19 9:02 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Perhaps to better have a look at this mail, than the previous mail.
> 
> In trying to group commands, in this case compiler commands, I found some peculiarities while trying different combinations of the 'Internal Field Separator'
> and the 'Parameter Expansion' operator ${parameter@P}.

I haven't looked at this in any depth, but you should realize that running

declare IFS=$(printf ' \t\n')

will result in IFS being set to space and tab, since command substitution
removes the trailing newline. Maybe that will make a difference.


-- 
``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