Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: bash aesthetics question: special characters in reg exp in [[ ...
 =~~ ... ]]
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:48:42 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <v7omtd$19ng6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7mknf$3plab$1@news.xmission.com> <v7nu8t$15bon$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7o56b$3qeeq$1@news.xmission.com> <v7ofkl$18d66$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7okrk$3qkbf$1@news.xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:48:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="813c436e4ebdd14f30c57dbc5b95f784";
	logging-data="1367558"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uAfS3GyD2yDnMUkcRUT9q"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:d0BfHYbSZDmGOyIyG2qZ7QPAOxA=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <v7okrk$3qkbf$1@news.xmission.com>
Bytes: 3373

On 23.07.2024 18:13, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <v7ofkl$18d66$1@dont-email.me>,
> Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23.07.2024 13:46, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> 
> One thing that bash does that's annoying is puts semicolons on the end of
> (almost) every line. 

Ouch!

> I have, on occasion, had to recover a function from
> the bash pretty print (*), and one of the things that needs to be done is
> to remove those extraneous semicolons.
> 
> (*) BTW, the command I use is "type".  I.e., "type funName" displays the
> function definition of function funName.  That seems to be the same as your
> use of "typeset".

I started tests with 'type' but the result was something undesirable
(forgot already what it was), so I tried the 'typeset -f' which had
better results (with ksh, zsh, at least).

Actually I was just playing around, since your post made me curious.
(I almost never inspect function definitions using one method or the
other. The interesting functions are non-trivial and already tested,
so interactively looking them up makes no sense for me. And other
functions are part of shell programs, either monolithic or used as
lib.) But as a side-effect of my tries I noticed another bug in the
ksh93u+m shell that I'm using. :-/ (But I'm digressing.)

> 
>> But ksh displays it as it had been typed in; a raw format.
>> If you define your function, say, as multi-line code you
>> also see it that way, there's no processing at that point
>> (or the original retained as copy). I didn't expect that.
> 
> Yep.  Note also that bash reformats something like:
> 
>     cmd1 &&
>       cmd2 &&
>         cmd3
> 
> to:
> 
>     cmd1 && cmd2 && cmd3
> 
> which is annoying.

Indeed. It reminds me the philosphy that I often noticed in MS (and
nowadays also in Linux software, sadly) contexts; they seem to think
their auto-changes are better than the intention of the programmer.

> 
> (**) I've hacked the bash source code for less.  So, yeah, it is possible.

Ah, okay. (Would not be my preferred way. :-)

Janis