On 08 Apr 2012, at 21:30, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 4/8/12 3:02 PM, Maarten Billemont wrote:
>
>> Any particular reason for not removing old undocumented functionality, or is
>> that mostly the nature of this beast - dragging along and maintaining
>> ancient code for the sake of compatibility?=
>
Could also use a #, no?
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 4:00 PM, Elliott Forney wrote:
>
>> I wish bash would happily execute lines that begin with a semicolon,
>> i.e., treat it as a no-op followed by a command. The following
>> examples come to mind:
>>
>> $
On 4/7/2012 4:00 PM, Elliott Forney wrote:
I wish bash would happily execute lines that begin with a semicolon,
i.e., treat it as a no-op followed by a command. The following
examples come to mind:
$ infloop& echo hello
[2] 11361
hello
$ infloop&; echo hello
bash: syntax error near unexpected
ever thought of going the depreciation route.
Something like what microsoft do with vc.
I.e. give a warning for depreciated constructs. With a hint as to how to
do it better?
Am 08.04.2012 21:30, schrieb Chet Ramey:
On 4/8/12 3:02 PM, Maarten Billemont wrote:
Any particular reason for not r
On 4/8/12 3:02 PM, Maarten Billemont wrote:
> Any particular reason for not removing old undocumented functionality, or is
> that mostly the nature of this beast - dragging along and maintaining ancient
> code for the sake of compatibility?=
Because, as Linda discovered, there is still working
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012, Linda Walsh wrote:
In modifying some released code on my distro,I ran into the extensive use
of $[arith] as a means for returning arithmetic evaluations of the
expression.
I vaguely remember something like that from years ago, but never see any
reference to
it --
On 08 Apr 2012, at 01:47, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 4/7/12 4:45 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In modifying some released code on my distro,I ran into the extensive use
>> of $[arith] as a means for returning arithmetic evaluations of the
>> expression.
>>
>> I vaguely remember somethin
