Re: Context sensitivity of the word "parameter" in the section of "Parameter Expansion"

[Peng Yu]

There can be many ways to solve it. I am not sure what is the best way.

But a central table should be better than scattered text throughout
the text. It is certainly better than nothing.

Each section describing a feature affected by history expansion should
have a reference to the central table.

I don't think omitting it and hoping readers be able to derive it
based on how bash works are the best way for writing the manual.

On 5/9/21, Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 5:28 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
>> On 5/9/21, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> > On 5/9/21 2:51 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
>> >> My point is the manual is not clear. It is not how to make it work in
>> >> this
>> >> case.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what you want here. This has nothing to do with Parameter
>> > Expansion, and the HISTORY EXPANSION section of the bash manual notes
>> > that:
>>
>> Since history expansion how parameter expansion is interpreted. I'd
>> say it is not "has nothing to do". The manual can be made clear on
>> this interference in the Parameter Expansion section.
>
> By virtue of modifying the input stream, history expansion has an
> effect on literally everything else that occurs subsequently, such
> as arithmetic substitution and pathname expansion.  Should every
> single section of the manual warn about history expansion?
>
> --
> vq
>


-- 
Regards,
Peng