Re: path PATH

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 2023-01-21 11:09, Roman Perepelitsa wrote:
> Is the number 42 "in fact" 8#52? 
Yes, it most certainly is -- in base 8, which is explicit.
> I gotta say, in pretty much every thread where you asked a question
> I'm left wondering whether you understood what I was saying. From my
> point of view the answer is logical and in a sense obvious

Ah, we'll that's the thing, one can misunderstand some basic premise 
which makes everything subsequent illogical.  Bart cleared this up by 
disabusing me of the idea that that a tie was just another name for 
exactly the same thing, and that *appears* to be the case.  It seemed so 
obviously the case that I didn't even ask the question.  But no!  a tie 
creates a scalar with the array elements joined by colons ... $PATH!  
But since typeset -p, in every other situation, shows you the value of a 
parameter I'm wanting the same for PATH.  I'd use set -- which shows it 
accurately with the colons -- *but* I'd also like to see the type of the 
variable besides it's value  which pushes me back to typeset -p.  So, 
there's no easy answer.  I just hafta remember that PATH, like any other 
tied param, will be a scalar created from an array and sorry, it can't 
be displayed  like that by typeset -p.    Dunno, maybe I can hack 
something together but probably not worth it.  One might wish for an 
option to set that would include type as well as value.  No typeset -p 
'recreation', just the information.  I sorta understand why typeset 
itself is not the vehicle for this since it's not by nature a 'viewer' 
but a 'creator'.

Anyway I've wasted enough of you guy's time with this.