Re: should this result in an endless loop ?

[Lawrence Velázquez]

Please stop randomly switching email addresses within your own
threads.

> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, 20:06 Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev <fxmbsw7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> in the progress to represent another bug report about something, i made
>> this nonfunctional code
>>
>> printf '(( $# )) && . afile' >afile
>>
>> i run it with . afile a or bash afile a
>> then it ends up never ending
>> in set -x theres like dozens of '+' deep doing the code

A demonstration for the curious:

    % cat >afile <<\EOF
    heredoc> (( $# )) && . afile
    heredoc> EOF
    % bash -x afile a
    + ((  1  ))
    + . afile
    ++ ((  1  ))
    ++ . afile
    +++ ((  1  ))
    +++ . afile
    ++++ ((  1  ))
    ++++ . afile
    +++++ ((  1  ))
    +++++ . afile
    [...]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021, at 2:08 PM, ikhxcsz7y xmbott wrote:
> maybe the '. file' didnt apply 'noargs given'

Yes, when you run ''.  afile'' without arguments, the positional
arguments are not cleared.  The manual states this explicitly.

    . filename [arguments]

      Read and execute commands from the `filename` argument in the
      current shell context.  [...]  If any `arguments` are supplied,
      they become the positional parameters when `filename` is
      executed.  Otherwise the positional parameters are unchanged.

https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Bourne-Shell-Builtins.html#index-_002e

-- 
vq