Johannes Sixt venit, vidit, dixit 06.05.2011 12:22:
> Am 5/6/2011 9:43, schrieb Michael J Gruber:
>> Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 05.05.2011 22:02:
>>> Kacper Kornet <draenog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> - printf "fatal: Path '$2$3' $4, but not ${5:-'$3'}.\n" >expected &&
>>>> - printf "Did you mean '$1:$2$3'${2:+ aka '$1:./$3'}?\n" >>expected &&
>>>> + printf "fatal: Path '$2$3' $4, but not ${5:-\'$3\'}.\n" >expected &&
>>>> + printf "Did you mean '$1:$2$3'${2:+ aka \'$1:./$3\'}?\n" >>expected &&
>> Other than that, I have no objections if this patch makes more shells
>> happy and no happy ones unhappy.
>>
>> Is your ksh OK with all other tests?
>
> Note that:
>
> - With the proposed change, bash now prints the backslashes.
>
> - The printfs should be echos, really.
I thought printfs can be relied upon better than echos (in terms of line
endings)?
> - The behavior of quoting at the right of :- when the ${...:-...} exansion
> appears in double-quotes was debated recently at length at the Austin
> group (which revises the POSIX standard). You better move the expansions
> to assignments of temporary variables, where you don't need the
> surrounding double-quotes:
>
> butnot=${5:-\'$3\'} aka=${2:+ aka \'$1:./$3\'}
>
> Here, the backslash unambiguously quotes the next character.
>
> -- Hannes
Whatever makes most shells happy, as long as that includes current bash...
Michael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html