Antw: [EXT] Re: manual page missing ${parameter-replacement}

[Ulrich Windl]

Sorry, I actually miussed it, as the typical usage pattern for lengthy manual
pages is like searching for ":-" and looking what is standing there:

       ${parameter:-word}
              Use  Default  Values.  If parameter is unset or null, the
expan-
              sion of word is substituted.  Otherwise, the value of 
parameter
              is substituted.

I see that there is some text before describing the first substitution pattern
common to all the ':' substitutions.
But from the syntax "${parameter:-word}" it's not really obvious that the
colon may be omitted.
Should it be "${parameter[:]-word}" (with non-bold square brackets) instead
(as for "name=[value]")?
Despite of that only ":-" is typeset in bold; shouldn't "${" and "}" be
typeset in bold, too?

>>> Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> schrieb am 21.11.2022 um 08:49 in
Nachricht
<99ac660c-3f76-4461-92b6-605c27c022c8@app.fastmail.com>:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022, at 2:20 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>> I think the bash manual page lacks some important detail of parameter 
>> substitution, namely:
>> "Bash tests for a parameter that is unset or null. Omitting the colon 
>> results in a test only for a parameter that is unset."
>>
>> (found in 
>> 
>
https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Shell-Parameter-Expansion.
> html)
> 
> You omitted all of the relevant context.  The full paragraph is:
> 
>       When not performing substring expansion, using the form [sic]
>       described below (e.g., ':-'), Bash tests for a parameter
>       that is unset or null.  Omitting the colon results in a
>       test only for a parameter that is unset.  Put another way,
>       if the colon is included, the operator tests for both
>       _parameter_'s existence and that its value is not null; if
>       the colon is omitted, the operator tests only for existence.
> 
> The manual then goes on to describe the ${parameter:-word},
> ${parameter:=word}, ${parameter:?word}, and ${parameter:+word}
> forms.  These are what your excerpt is talking about.
> 
> So what do you think is missing, exactly?
> 
> -- 
> vq