[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFE: request for quotes as grouping operators to work in brackets as

From: Jan Schampera
Subject: Re: RFE: request for quotes as grouping operators to work in brackets as elsewhere.
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:28:07 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20100329)

Linda Walsh wrote:

Why do (or should) double quotes lose their normal meaning inside
double brackets?

After initialĺy introducing =~, Chet made it consistent with =/== in a second version, means: =/== doesn't do pattern matching for parts inside quotes, =~ doesn't du regexp matching for parts inside quotes.

My personal opinion is: This makes sense. Can't speak for others.

That's also the reason you have 2 different =~ behaviours. Please, whatever the reasonable result of this discussion is, do not make up yet the next =~ variant that's incompatible with the others ;)

I would like to see double quotes and single quotes NOT disable
RE functionality when used with =~.  I would like to suggest that to
disable RE functionality, that the user use '==', instead.

== is the same as =, my suggestion is to NOT touch that. It would be even better to introduce a new operator instead of touching =~ (see above) or the pattern matchers. Maybe you don't care for compatiblity, I do, since I'm operating the same scripts on systems with Bash 2.05b to the newest 4.x without changes - so please don't suggest anything that will break compatiblity with very common things that were there for ages (like the pattern matchers in the conditional expression).

Wouldn't it be reasonable to do RE matching when one does =~ and not
do it when one uses ==?

For ==, see above. For the behaviour of =~: It was adjusted in 3.2 to be consistent with =/==. As far as I remember there was a lot of discussion, maybe Chet can say something about it.

The whole point of the =~ was to allow regex matching.  If you don't
want it, why would you have to create special, asymmetric functionality
for quotes?

I don't really see your problem with regex matching at the moment, maybe I misunderstand you.

Maybe you think this means you can not match quotes in a regex at all, this would be totally wrong, of course you can. Just with a small syntax speciality (like for pattern matching, too).

The "portable" way for =~ in Bash is putting the RE into a variable, anyways. Not nice. Such things come up when you break compatiblity (see above, changed between 3.0 and 3.2).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]