OT: Bash 3.0 Released

OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[Felix Rosencrantz]

Since this is a major release number, thought folks might find this
interesting, even though this is off topic.

There's a Slashdot posting:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/04/07/29/139218.shtml?tid=162&tid=117&tid=190&tid=130&tid=106

Chet Ramey's Usenet posting:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=25&hl=en&lr=lang_da%7Clang_en%7Clang_no%7Clang_pl%7Clang_sv&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.unix.shell&c2coff=1&selm=ce69oa%24sev%241%40eeyore.INS.cwru.edu

Major new features from that posting:
o Features to support the bash debugger have been implemented, and there
  is a new `extdebug' option to turn the non-default options on

o HISTCONTROL is now a colon-separated list of options and has been
  extended with a new `erasedups' option that will result in only one
  copy of a command being kept in the history list

o Brace expansion has been extended with a new {x..y} form, producing
  sequences of digits or characters

o Timestamps are now kept with history entries, with an option to save
  and restore them from the history file; there is a new HISTTIMEFORMAT
  variable describing how to display the timestamps when listing history
  entries

o The `[[' command can now perform extended regular expression (egrep-like)
  matching, with matched subexpressions placed in the BASH_REMATCH array
  variable

o A new `pipefail' option causes a pipeline to return a failure status if
  any command in it fails

o The `jobs', `kill', and `wait' builtins now accept job control notation
  in their arguments even if job control is not enabled

-FR.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[DervishD]

    Hi Felix :)

 * Felix Rosencrantz <f_rosencrantz@yahoo.com> dixit:
> Major new features from that posting:
[...]

    Is any of them interesting? Bash is a quite good shell (I've been
using it for years until I discovered Zsh), but all new features of
Bash have been in zsh for a (long?) time.

> o A new `pipefail' option causes a pipeline to return a failure status if
>   any command in it fails
 
    Good. I prefer the usual behaviour, because that way you can
'hid' any error value in a pipeline if you want. But it can be a good
option to have if you do a lot of scripting involving long pipelines
whose last commands can be successful thus hiding errors.

> o The `jobs', `kill', and `wait' builtins now accept job control notation
>   in their arguments even if job control is not enabled

    That's nice :))

    Thanks for pointing. Is good to see that Bash is getting better.
Is good to see that any free software goes better :)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.pleyades.net & http://raul.pleyades.net/

Re: OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[Stephane Chazelas]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 06:09:56PM +0200, DervishD wrote:
>  * Felix Rosencrantz <f_rosencrantz@yahoo.com> dixit:
> > Major new features from that posting:
> [...]
> 
>     Is any of them interesting? Bash is a quite good shell (I've been
> using it for years until I discovered Zsh), but all new features of
> Bash have been in zsh for a (long?) time.
[...]

Interesting feature not in zsh (AFAIK) :

{a..d} for {a,b,c,d}

bash doesn support the {001..012} though.

-- 
Stephane

Re: OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[Oliver Kiddle]

Stephane Chazelas wrote:

> Interesting feature not in zsh (AFAIK) :
> 
> {a..d} for {a,b,c,d}

setopt braceccl
echo {a-d}

I'm not sure the bash syntax isn't better though...

Oliver

Re: OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[Stephane Chazelas]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:24:24PM +0200, Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 
> > Interesting feature not in zsh (AFAIK) :
> > 
> > {a..d} for {a,b,c,d}
> 
> setopt braceccl
> echo {a-d}
[...]

Oops, sorry. Poor memory of mine
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrnbtch72.3v.stephane.chazelas@spam.is.invalid
;)

{a..dg..h} doesn't work (contrary to zsh's {a-dg-h}

-- 
Stephane

Re: OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[Peter Stephenson]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 
> > Interesting feature not in zsh (AFAIK) :
> > 
> > {a..d} for {a,b,c,d}
> 
> setopt braceccl
> echo {a-d}
> 
> I'm not sure the bash syntax isn't better though...

Yes, it would be.  This is all ancient history.  Bart will no doubt
find some ancient email or change entry to contradict me, but it went
something like this:

- pfalstad original had just BRACE_CCL.  The main reason this is an
  option rather than default behaviour is you can also do {aeiou} to
  generate any of the characters in the same way as {a,e,i,o,u}.
  (Bart told me for the purpose of the book that BRACE_CCL stands
  for `brace character classes', so it's deliberately similar to
  the way [aeiou] works in pattern matching.)

- I added the {num1..num2} syntax, borrowed from Perl.  Braces without
  commas don't usually have any effect, so I wasn't too worried about
  compatibility.  But to be on the safe side I made sure it fitted
  the form exactly.

- Bash borrowed {num1..num2}, although without the feature to pad
  leading zeroes.

- They've obviously decided to extend this to characters in a consistent
  way.

Borrowing it back is presumably not that hard, but I'm doubtful how
useful it would be.  It's in the sort of area where no one is going
to expect much compatibility between shells.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

Re: OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[Bart Schaefer]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Peter Stephenson wrote:

> This is all ancient history.  Bart will no doubt find some ancient email 
> or change entry to contradict me, but it went something like this [...]

Actually that summary was spot on, as far as I know/can tell.

> Borrowing it back is presumably not that hard, but I'm doubtful how
> useful it would be.  It's in the sort of area where no one is going
> to expect much compatibility between shells.

Agreed.

Re: OT: Bash 3.0 Released

[Oliver Kiddle]

Peter wrote:
> - I added the {num1..num2} syntax, borrowed from Perl.  Braces without
>   commas don't usually have any effect, so I wasn't too worried about
>   compatibility.  But to be on the safe side I made sure it fitted
>   the form exactly.
> 
> - Bash borrowed {num1..num2}, although without the feature to pad
>   leading zeroes.
> 
> - They've obviously decided to extend this to characters in a consistent
>   way.
> 
> Borrowing it back is presumably not that hard, but I'm doubtful how
> useful it would be.  It's in the sort of area where no one is going
> to expect much compatibility between shells.

On the other hand, if it came from perl, it might make sense to copy
perl more accurately. Perl handles things like (0xab..0xde) and
(aa..zz) and even (Ab1..De2) sanely. This makes it somewhat less like
braceccl. If you try things like {A..z} in the new bash, you'll see
that it is trying to be like braceccl. Just not very well given that it
limits the choice of start and end characters.

Oliver