Re: access exported var

[Peng Yu]

On 1/16/23, Peng Yu <pengyu.ut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/16/23, Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
>>> On 1/16/23, Leonid Isaev <leonid.isaev@ifax.com> wrote:
>>>> if I know that an array "${a[@]}" can't be exported, and want to
>>>> export its 1st element, I will do just that: export a variable
>>>> "${a[0]}"...
>>>
>>> Then, you are then suggesting ${Z[0]} instead $Z for the first element
>>> of the Z array, for the same logic.
>>>
>>> I'd rather have $Z as a shorthand notation of ${Z[0]} for the fewer
>>> keystrokes. Bash is for command line interaction, every keystroke
>>> counts.
>>
>> Not everyone agrees with your priorities and opinion on what bash
>> is "for".  One could say (and I do) that brevity should not take
>> unqualified precedence over clarity and explicitness.
>
> But bash already favors brevity in many instances as a matter fact.
> Whatever you think it should be in terms of brevity and
> clarity/explicitness does not matter at this time. (For example,
> variable may not be declared, almost any string can be a command
> name.)
>
> It is logical to only expand bash in the principles that it followed for
> years.
>
>>> If you want verbosity, you can use java.
>
> My point is that bash is for verbosity. Something as verbose as

I mean bash is *not* for verbosity. Sorry for the typo.

> mandating ${x[0]} should not even be bothered to be raised.
>
>> This suggestion is unhelpful.  "Verbosity" aside, Java and bash are
>> tailored for different use cases.
>>
>> --
>> vq
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Peng
>


-- 
Regards,
Peng