Re: status on $[arith] for eval arith vsl $((arith))??

[Linda Walsh]

Maarten Billemont wrote:

> On 08 Apr 2012, at 21:30, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 4/8/12 3:02 PM, Maarten Billemont wrote:
> >
> > > Any particular reason for not removing old undocumented functionality, or is 
> > > that mostly the nature of this beast - dragging along and maintaining ancient 
> > > code for the sake of compatibility?=
> > Because, as Linda discovered, there is still working code out there using
> > it.  Maybe we'll get to a point where it's all gone, but we're not there
> > yet.
>
>
> IMO, the working code out there that relies on $[...] either runs on older 
> versions of bash.

Actually it was a version of 'sh',

Seems like it it's also in 'zsh'. I note.



or if the sysadmin decided to upgrade bash, he can assume the responsibility to 
fix the code.

Might be a good reason to ditch bash and stick with something that supports a 
syntax that's been around for 20 years.

Like it costs how much?  I would **bet** that it cost more code to support (()) 
than to support [] as arith ops .. so if you want my opinion, lets toss (())...
(like that'll happen)...

[] is 1 token -- (()) is a double token.  (()) is much less legible because it 
is used IN the expressions [] isn't a grouping operator in an arith expression.

Also if you start with $((, that doesn't mean what follows is a arith 
expression...as in
$(((1)) && echo ok) -- only arith expression is after the 3rd paren.

$(()) for arith expressions is ugly!.... -- since the $ on the outside of (()) 
changes it meaning visually it is more ambiguous...  Why $[] wasn't used makes
no sense -- unless someone did it the other way just to make political waves...
as seems to often be the outlet of frustrated and unimportant people -- if they 
can make others lives more miserable, then they have created their own importance.

*plegh*...