On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson:
> > I find the bash behaviour more logical, and I do use it in scripts.
>
> Examples?
>
> http://fvue.nl/wiki/Bash:_Passing_variables_by_reference , I like that.
On 11/10/2010 05:25 PM, Roman Rakus wrote:
$ tree -p
.
├── [-rwxrwxr-x] out_bin
├── [-rw-rw-r--] out_not_bin
├── [drwxrwxr-x] out_of_recursion
└── [drwxrwxr-x] recursion
├── [-rwxrwxr-x] bin
├── [lrwxrwxrwx] in -> ../recursion/
├── [-rw-rw-r--] not_bin
└── [drwxrwxr-x] without
Ah, there are m
$ tree -p
.
├── [-rwxrwxr-x] out_bin
├── [-rw-rw-r--] out_not_bin
├── [drwxrwxr-x] out_of_recursion
└── [drwxrwxr-x] recursion
├── [-rwxrwxr-x] bin
├── [lrwxrwxrwx] in -> ../recursion/
├── [-rw-rw-r--] not_bin
└── [drwxrwxr-x] without
4 directories, 4 files
let's go into recursion dir
$ cd recu
Eric Blake:
> On the Austin Group mailing list, David Korn (of ksh93 fame)
> complained[1] that bash's 'local' uses dynamic scoping, but that ksh's
> 'typeset' uses static scoping, and argued that static scoping is saner
> since it matches the behavior of declarative languages like C and Java
> (dy
