On Sat, Jun 28, 2025, at 10:00 PM, Wiley Young wrote: > I don't see any other written instances of omitting a ':' amongst the > examples in these x4 descriptions. > > Whether the existing omission was intentional or no, I think it would be > helpful for the reader to point up how that one line of code serves as an > example of omitting a ':', especially since there aren't any other such > examples.
The examples in this section have already been expanded significantly to demonstrate the effects of including and excluding ':'. https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/doc/bashref.texi?h=devel&id=b35866a2891a9b069e37ca5684d4309c0391e261#n2297 > In the same section at the 5th P.E. on the next page, in my opinion for the > sake of thoroughness and consistency, the addition of one word would be > beneficial: "initial," "first," 'non-following,' or something. > > "Note that a negative offset must be separated from the [non-following] > colon by at least one space to avoid being confused with the ‘:-’ > expansion,' since a negative offset can exist immediately beside a > subsequent colon. I think that "preceding" would be the best word here. The new second clause is unnecessary. -- vq
