[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: status on $[arith] for eval arith vsl $((arith))??

From: Linda Walsh
Subject: Re: status on $[arith] for eval arith vsl $((arith))??
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:07:03 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Maarten Billemont wrote:

Any particular reason for not removing old undocumented functionality,

or is that mostly the nature of this beast - dragging along and maintaining

ancient code for the sake of compatibility?


So 'yesturday' is "ancient" for you?... that's really means something.

In doing a scan over my /usr partition,
I see MANY examples in bash 4.1 in it's examples of using $[] -- I would hardly call 4.1 "ancient".

Other packages that make use of the syntax:

* wondershaper
* cifs file system
* alsa (sound)
* fonts-config   (this is a new project within the past few years)
* QT4
* GoogleBrowser (chromium)
* YP
* PM Utils
* RPMrebuild
* iproute2 (almost all modern internet functions on linux)...
* dhcp-client
- (zsh -- not a real example, but might become alternate system shell if bash
 killed $[] support)
* Opera - ? (has comment "TODO use $(()) instead of $[] whenever possible;...) "whenever possible??"
* samba
   and a HUGE number in
** linux-kernel -- all over the place...

At that point, I was getting too many to keep up with ... so I stopped 

$[] has is -- I would bet, Universally, used MORE than $(())...

Chet -- you should get back to the posix folks and tell them posix is to be 'descriptive of usage' (their words), not prescriptive. Just because ksh did it differently from everyone else's usage doesn't mean they should go with that


reply via email to

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