Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:18:42 +0930 From: Malcolm Kay <malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> To: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> Cc: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: snippet of configure script - explain please Message-ID: <200807110018.43081.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> In-Reply-To: <200807101415.51455.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> References: <20080709172513.GA51206@mech-cluster238.men.bris.ac.uk> <200807101354.46321.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> <200807101415.51455.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:45 pm, Mel wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2008 06:24:46 Malcolm Kay wrote:
>
> > > 9255 if { as_var=$as_ac_var; eval "test \"\${$as_var+set}\" = set"; };
> > > then
> >
> > I find this line somewhat strange as I've not been able
> > to find documentation for the expansion of ${parameter+set} under the
> > Bourne shell. (nor bash, nor ksh)
> > *****************************************************
> > Presumably someone out there knows where to find it?
> > *****************************************************
>
> It's shorthand for ${paramter:+set}, so if unset, you get "", otherwise you
> get "set":
> $ echo ${foo+set}
>
> $ echo ${HOME+set}
> set
So it appears; but is it stated anywhere that this shorthand is legitimate?
I find it quite frequently arising from the GNU configuring tools but
haven't found it elsewhere.
Is it a deliberate shorthand or just a consequence of the way sh and bash
happen to have been programmed? In other words is it a safe shorthand?
Anyway thanks for the clarification,
Malcolm
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200807110018.43081.malcolm.kay>