On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> Fwiw here is a robust and simple solution for in_:
>
> _in () {
> local e t
> t="${2:?}[@]";
> for e in "${!t}"; do [[ $1 = "$e" ]] && return 0;done
> return 1;
> }
>
>
The following won't have a name space collision with the 'e' variable
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> On Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:01:51 AM Pierre Gaston wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> >(no I haven't made it space/bracket...whatever proof...just a bit
>> > more work)
>>
>> It's not just "a bit more work", ther
On Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:01:51 AM Pierre Gaston wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> >(no I haven't made it space/bracket...whatever proof...just a bit
> > more work)
>
> It's not just "a bit more work", there are many workarounds but it's not
> really possible to ma
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>(no I haven't made it space/bracket...whatever proof...just a bit
> more work)
It's not just "a bit more work", there are many workarounds but it's not
really possible to make a really robust generic solution for assignment,
and in the end it ju
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>
>> The only Bourne-family shell that can manipulate arrays whose names are
>> passed to a function is ksh93, with its "nameref" command. Bash has
>> nothing analogous to that yet.
>
> =
>
> I don't unders
Greg Wooledge wrote:
The only Bourne-family shell that can manipulate arrays whose names are
passed to a function is ksh93, with its "nameref" command. Bash has
nothing analogous to that yet.
=
I don't understand.
Are you saying that ${!nameofvar} isnt' supported?
I need a fun
