[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how does bash parse back-ticks, anyway? (was: [Bug 103756] kate: syn
Re: how does bash parse back-ticks, anyway? (was: [Bug 103756] kate: syntax highlighting error: bash and escaped quotes)
Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:09:16 -0500
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20070221 Thunderbird/220.127.116.11 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
Since this is not really appropriate to the bug report, I am moving it
exclusively to the lists. Please direct replies to
kwrite-devel<at>kde.org and bug-bash<at>gnu.org.
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
Current bash.xml accepts (a), but not (b). The single qoute is
the start of string highlight. It's also not just the backtick
block, but the backtick block inside of a double quote string
block - and vice versa.
x="`echo \"'\\\"\"`" is valid
My bash highlighter thinks this is invalid. So does my brain. However bash
seems OK with it. Why, I wonder? Maybe I am not clear on the expansion rules in
x=`echo \"'\\\"\"` isn't
Ditto, except bash also (correctly IMO) doesn't like it.
The other way around:
x=`echo "'\""` is valid
x="`echo "'\""`" isn't
but both are highlighted as valid.
That's odd, because all of the following are valid:
echo `echo "'\""`
x="$(echo "'\"")" <-- this should be syntactically equivalent?!
...so this feels like a bug in bash.
Matthew, it's not a bug in bash, it's a feature. $(foo) and `foo`
are not 100% equivalent. Read the command substitution paragraph
in the bash man page.
I did, and I saw that it talked about them being different, but I didn't
understand *how* they were supposed to be different (besides, you've got
some weirdnesses in there that look like they should/shouldn't work
regardless of the back-ticks). In particular I fail to understand why
whether or not there are quotes around the back-ticks should have any
effect (which it clearly does). So until someone on bug-bash explains to
me differently, I'm not convinced bash.xml is wrong.
If nothing else, I'll stand by it being a bash bug, if only in the docs
because they are not sufficiently clear. :-)
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf jvgubhg fbsgjner, lbh ner n FREVBHF areq! --
Nqncgrq sebz Znggurj Jva (ivz-qri znvyvat yvfg)
- Re: how does bash parse back-ticks, anyway? (was: [Bug 103756] kate: syntax highlighting error: bash and escaped quotes),
Matthew Woehlke <=