Re: Context sensitivity of the word "parameter" in the section of "Parameter Expansion"

[Chris Elvidge]

On 10/05/2021 12:14 am, Peng Yu wrote:
> There can be many ways to solve it. I am not sure what is the best way.
>
> But a central table should be better than scattered text throughout
> the text. It is certainly better than nothing.
>
> Each section describing a feature affected by history expansion should
> have a reference to the central table.
>
> I don't think omitting it and hoping readers be able to derive it
> based on how bash works are the best way for writing the manual.
>
> On 5/9/21, Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 9, 2021, at 5:28 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
> > > On 5/9/21, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > > On 5/9/21 2:51 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
> > > > > My point is the manual is not clear. It is not how to make it work in
> > > > > this
> > > > > case.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you want here. This has nothing to do with Parameter
> > > > Expansion, and the HISTORY EXPANSION section of the bash manual notes
> > > > that:
> > >
> > > Since history expansion how parameter expansion is interpreted. I'd
> > > say it is not "has nothing to do". The manual can be made clear on
> > > this interference in the Parameter Expansion section.
> >
> > By virtue of modifying the input stream, history expansion has an
> > effect on literally everything else that occurs subsequently, such
> > as arithmetic substitution and pathname expansion.  Should every
> > single section of the manual warn about history expansion?
> >
> > --
> > vq

As you feel so strongly about errors and omissions in the documentation, 
why do you not start rectifying them by submitting patches to the 
maintainers?


--
Chris Elvidge
England