Re: Incorrect alias expansion within command substitution

[Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev]

i see only two solutions as an option
one option does expand aliases inside safe out of the tree
the other more eval ing

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 02:27 L A Walsh <bash@tlinx.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 2022/02/02 08:50, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 2/2/22 8:25 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I.e. My bash is posix compliant by default w/r/t aliases:
> >>
> >
> > It's not, and that's how this whole issue got started. You're running
> > bash-4.4. POSIX requires the following to work:
> >
> > alias switch=case
> > echo $(switch foo in foo) echo ok 2;; esac )
> >
> > and it simply doesn't, whether you run in posix mode or not.
> >
> -----
> You are right in that I was entirely in left field. However w/r/t starting
> with aliases being enabled by default when bash starts (interactive or
> not),
> I would prefer bash follow posix rules.
>

i prefer always bash extras over outdated incomplete stuff specs


> While I compile my bash to follow posix rules, I can't quite write my
> general scripts to expect that as bash at the trunc level
>
> I missed the original problem being talked about here.
>
> My posix non-conformance issue has to do with bash not starting with
> aliases enabled by default in all default invocations.
>
> While BASH_ALIASES is inherited I can't specify a set of aliases that I can
> expect to just 'work' when bash starts.
>

namespaces would do

>
> For that matter I can't expect my own maps (arrays with non-integer or
> integer
> to work in child processes.
>

i suggest an array exporting too, maybe with memory compression prolly not e

>
> I've tried to suggest various improvements over the years, and don't
> understand the resistance of all the suggestion.
>

:/

>
> I will admit that my focus is utility and usability rather than
> security, ever since
> the attack on bash function injections, but would have suggested using a
> shared memory file owned by root to hold a key (checksum key) of
> functions and secured variables.  Perhaps not ideal, but, I believe
> workable.
>
> Unfortunately, all of my ideas/works after last Thanksgiving have
> suffered from a
> decrease in mental function due to a nasty stroke that affected my visual
> cortext -- affecting both eyes and image processing.  Since I have been
> highly
> visually oriented, many of my memories, and ability to visualize my code
> and even
> see or read a line at a time are impaired, requiring me to read
> word-by-word which
> horribly slows down reading and virtually eliminates ability to skim
> text -- the result being I often miss entire phrases, even sections.
> Apparently from cat scan and MRI's that stroke as only one of the worse
> was only 1 of several picked up
> by the dianostics.
>
>
>
> So if it looks like I missed something -- I probably did.  I also
> sometimes have gaps
> in a logical chain of though, because I thought it, but missed putting
> it into words.
>
> So most sorry for missing key key points in arguments, as well as
> missing under- standing, what to you are obvious points of joining logic.
>
> I will try to continue my to increase due-diligence, but will most
> assuredly fail.
>
> My apologies.
> Ms. Linda Walsh
> (aka Astara)
> (at) tlinx.org
>
>
>
>
> Sadly this gives some rampant examples to point out my logical flaws and
> my missing basic. points in a discussion.
>
> I apoligize in advance for my many
>
>