[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Should this be this way?
From: |
Linda Walsh |
Subject: |
Should this be this way? |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:03:27 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
My login shell is /bin/bash (i.e. not /bin/sh); SHELL=/bin/bash as well.
Typing 'which bash' gives /bin/bash, and whence bash: bash is /bin/bash.
I had the foll0wing script which acts differently based on
whether or not it has a #!/bin/bash at the top: (i.e., as it is
displayed below, it fails; one need remove the [] from the first
line for it to work.
================
#[!/bin/bash]
while read fn;do
base=${fn%.*}
if [[ -e $base ]]; then
if [[ $base -ot $fn ]]; then echo "compressed version ($fn) seems newer"
elif [[ $base -nt $fn ]]; then echo "uncompressed version ($base)
seem newer"
else echo "both versions ($base) are same age"
fi
else
echo "No uncompressed version of $base exists"
fi
done < <(find . -type f -name \*.[0-9].\*[zZ]\* )
-------------
The error:
./manscan.sh: line 12: syntax error near unexpected token `<'
./manscan.sh: line 12: `done < <(find . -type f -name \*.[0-9].\*[zZ]\* )'
Why would this script behave differently if the first line
exists or not? (Putting the !shell in square brackets,
made it a comment, not an interpreter spec, thus the same
effect as if it wasn't there ('cept the line number of the error is 1
less if you don't have the line! ;-)).
So...is this correct behavior for some[inane POSIX] reason?
Seems a bit odd to me.
- Should this be this way?,
Linda Walsh <=
- Re: Should this be this way?, DJ Mills, 2013/02/25
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/25
- Re: Should this be this way?, DJ Mills, 2013/02/25
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/25
- Re: Should this be this way?, Chris Down, 2013/02/25
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Chet Ramey, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Greg Wooledge, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/26