On 09 Apr 2012, at 11:46, Linda Walsh wrote: > > Like it costs how much? I would **bet** that it cost more code to support > (()) than to support [] as arith ops .. so if you want my opinion, lets toss > (())... > (like that'll happen)...
Just thought I'd add that I personally prefer $((...)) mostly because of consistency with other syntax. $ is always an indicator of expansion, and since we have (( ... )) to perform an arithmetic evaluation (on its own as a statement or in a for etc.), I'm very happy that putting a $ in front of that is all it takes to expand the result of it. Just like putting a dollar in front of a subshell construct expands the output of it and putting a dollar in front of a parameter name expands the contents of it. If we were to move to $[ ... ], then to keep that consistency, we'd have to change (( ... )) to [ ... ], and it so happens that this command is already taken for a different type of test entirely. (Don't give me the spiel about how [...] is already arithmetic evaluation inside array indices, that's a different syntax entirely, and perfectly fine - unless you'd prefer to turn it into arr[ (( ... )) ], which is rather overkill.)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
