On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, at 12:23 PM, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the GNU
Bourne Again SHell wrote:
> You're discouraging it's use by not documenting it.
That is the point, I believe.
> BTW, according to those links below, apparently zsh documents it
This is true.
https://zsh.sourceforge.io/D
Thanks, Greg!!!
On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 01:19:28 PM EST, Greg Wooledge
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 17:23:57 +, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the
GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
> - Is our conversation being recorded somewhere in the gnu archives, so
>that I can link to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 17:23:57 +, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the
GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote:
>- Is our conversation being recorded somewhere in the gnu archives, so
> that I can link to it in my stackoverflow question? Otherwise, I'll just
> clip quotes from it to paste there.
Thanks for your reply, Chet!
You're discouraging it's use by not documenting it. BTW, according to those
links below, apparently zsh documents it (and encourages its use)?
Two questions:
- Is there a link to some page where you document
obsolete/discouraged/deprecated constructs?
On 3/7/25 9:23 AM, John Wiersba via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again
SHell wrote:
In all versions of bash since 2001 (e.g. 5.1.16(1)-release), the following syntax
works but is not documented:$ for (( i=0; i<3; ++i )) { echo $i; }
0
1
2
The group command as loop body syntax only exists for
In all versions of bash since 2001 (e.g. 5.1.16(1)-release), the following
syntax works but is not documented:$ for (( i=0; i<3; ++i )) { echo $i; }
0
1
2
The manpage only lists this syntax: for (( expr1 ; expr2 ; expr3 )) ; do list
; done$ bash --version | head -1 # on a Dell desktop, linux
