help-bash
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: non working code .. loop ends after one


From: alex xmb ratchev
Subject: Re: non working code .. loop ends after one
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 09:04:36 +0100

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023, 8:22 AM Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri <
andreas.kahari@abc.se> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 01:24:29AM +0100, alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023, 1:21 AM Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023, at 7:09 PM, alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023, 12:39 AM Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me>
> wrote:
> > > >> It will also be in the next version of POSIX:
> > > >> https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=243#c6110
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > there is imo ' big undefined ' there
> > > > they state , to change to , ' if {} is one char '
> > > > what if more than one
> > >
> > > Then the behavior is unspecified (i.e., implementation-dependent).
> > > That's not your opinion; it is literally what the new text says.
> > >
> >
> > ye , undef behav , what i say
> >
> >         The following options shall be supported:
> > >
> > >         -d delim
> > >
> > >                 If _delim_ consists of one single-byte character,
> > >                 that byte shall be used as the logical line delimiter.
> > >                 If _delim_ is the null string, the logical line
> > >                 delimiter shall be the null byte.  Otherwise, the
> > >                 behavior is unspecified.
> > >
> > > --
> > > vq
> > >
>
> Note that there is a slight difference between "unspecified" (which is
> what the quoted text uses) and "undefined" (which is what you use).  It
> may not make much difference to the discussion at hand but...
>

i .. wouldnt count so much to my wording .. me no english pro

Something (data input or program construct) that is "unspecified" is
> still *valid*, but the standard does not say what the behaviour or
> resulting value is.
>
> Something that is "undefined" is *not* valid, and the standard does not
> say what the behaviour or resulting value is.
>

but u did , try , explain it well
.. i cant however make so much out of it
i symbolically read , ill try thinking more about it

thanks , greets

-- 
> Andreas (Kusalananda) Kähäri
> SciLifeLab, NBIS, ICM
> Uppsala University, Sweden
>
> .
>


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]