Sujet : Re: bash aesthetics question: special characters in reg exp in [[ ... =~~ ... ]]
De : gazelle (at) *nospam* shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Groupes : comp.unix.shellDate : 23. Jul 2024, 18:13:40
Autres entêtes
Organisation : The official candy of the new Millennium
Message-ID : <v7okrk$3qkbf$1@news.xmission.com>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
In article <
v7ofkl$18d66$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+
ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23.07.2024 13:46, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <v7nu8t$15bon$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Both (ksh & zsh) seem to show "better aesthetics".
Indeed, it does. That is how it should work.
>
BTW, it's interesting that bash and zsh both reformat (sort
of pretty-print) the code (when using 'typeset -f'), only
that zsh keeps that literal '\n'. This may show a way (by
zsh example) how to follow Kaz' suggestion of patching the
bash. (But, frankly, I'm not sure it was meant seriously. (see ** below))
Yes. ksh seems to dump it out literally as is (as it was typed), but bash
(and, I guess also zsh - I have zero knowledge or experience of zsh) pretty
prints it. But it seems zsh does a prettier print than bash.
One thing that bash does that's annoying is puts semicolons on the end of
(almost) every line. I have, on occasion, had to recover a function from
the bash pretty print (*), and one of the things that needs to be done is
to remove those extraneous semicolons.
(*) BTW, the command I use is "type". I.e., "type funName" displays the
function definition of function funName. That seems to be the same as your
use of "typeset".
But ksh displays it as it had been typed in; a raw format.
If you define your function, say, as multi-line code you
also see it that way, there's no processing at that point
(or the original retained as copy). I didn't expect that.
Yep. Note also that bash reformats something like:
cmd1 &&
cmd2 &&
cmd3
to:
cmd1 && cmd2 && cmd3
which is annoying.
(**) I've hacked the bash source code for less. So, yeah, it is possible.
-- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remainin compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ThePublicGood