On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 06:21:40PM -0500, ken wrote:
> > Is this what you wanted to do?
>
> Stephen, thanks for your reply, but you're not seeing what I want to do.
> Let me post my example once again:
You're not reading what I wrote.
> -------------------------
> Line()
> {
> echo This is line "$LINENO" $@
As I said in my previous mail, use ${BASH_LINENO[0]} instead, which tells
you the line it was called from.
Thus:
$ cat func-file
Line()
{
echo This is line "${BASH_LINENO[0]}" $@
}
$ cat x
#!/bin/bash
. ./func-file
Line ... it should be $LINENO
$ ./x
This is line 5 ... it should be 5
> but it's not. The num output in "This is line [num]" is whatever the
> line number is in the function definition. (I.e., $LINENO is evaluated
> in the function. Try it if you don't believe me.)
I explained to you _exactly_ why you are seeing the behaviour you are
seeing. Your interpretation of what is happening is wrong. $LINENO
gets _reset_ when you enter a function.
> What I'm looking for is the proper syntax to wrap around $LINENO in the
You can _not_ use $LINENO in this manner. You _must_ use the BASH_LINENO
array. That's what it was created for.
> function definition (in func-file) so that it's not evaluated there but
> is evaluated when the function is called in the second file.
You clearly don't understand how scripts are evaluated. I've given you
the answer; I've proven it with output from the shell; I've referenced
the documentation; I've explained how this works.
I even told you the solution and what variable you should use.
I give up.
--
rgds
Stephen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
