On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Garrick Staples wrote: > > I'm not asking for this. I'm only asking for the option to be able to trust > > that a parameter is... a parameter. EG: > > > > file: script1.sh > > #! /bin/bash > > script2.sh $1 > > exit 0; > > > > file: script2.sh > > #! /bin/bash > > echo $1; > > > > $ script1.sh "this\ parameter"; > > > > I get output of "this"! script2 gets two parameters! I want a way for 1 > > You need to quote the variable: > #!/bin/bash > echo "$1" You missed the point. In script2.sh, $1 only contains the string "this". There is no safe way to pass $1 (containing string "this parameter") from script1 to script2 as a single, trustable parameter. You can't do it. Bash is incapable of passing a parameter safely. You can sorta do it with *$ in the case of spaces. But this is all but powerless against file names containing quotes or other "special" characters. See below Disney example. So $1 in script 1 contains "this parameter". $1 in script 2 contains "this". Instead, I have to hork it up with awk, sed, or something similar, and try to account for every possible interpreted character. (I'm feeling that powerful goodness already! =) > > parameter to STAY 1 parameter upon request, so that script2.sh would > > output "this parameter", like > > > > file:script1.sh > > #! /bin/bash > > PassToShell2=escapethis $1; > > script2.sh $PassToShell; > > exit 0; > > You are missing two sets of quotes: > #!/bin/bash > PassToShell2="escapethis $1" > script2.sh "$PassToShell" You missed the point here too. Maybe, to make it more clear, try this: #!/bin/bash PassToShell2=`escapethis $1`; script2.sh "$PassToShell" escapethis is intended to be a call, not a parameter. Please re-read my earlier note with this new understanding? > [...snip blah blah rant...] > > > http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prog-Intro-HOWTO-12.html#ss12.1 > > > > Here's what I get: > > > > mv: invalid option -- a > > Try `mv --help' for more information. > > That's a bug in the script. > > It should be: > mv -- "$file" "$file$suffix" Again, you're missing the point. (practice makes perfect?) While this "--" on the mv line is a good way to work around the fact that "-a" is being interpreted, it doesn't change the fact that $file is unescaped. The "-a" can be part of a file called "Disney Trip -a mother's journey.doc" No amount of quoting the on the mv line will change the fact that there is no way to pass a parameter SAFELY. "-a" is an example that can be matched by files with quotes, doublequotes, dashes, semicolons and other characters. Never do we actually have a trustable value in $file, only an interpreted one. Bash is incapable of passing a parameter SAFELY. Here are the offending lines: for file in $* do mv ${file} $prefix$file done But you didn't read that, did you? Try it yourself! echo blah > "Disney trip -a mother\'s journey.doc"; I tried the following code with the above example. Note the quotes! for file in $* do echo "$file"; done; called like: /bin/bash ../test.sh * Disney trip -a mother\'s journey.doc 5 parameters, one file. Wheeeee! Bash is incapable of passing a parameter Safely. No amount of quoting will make TLDP's "move a bunch of files" script actually work reliably. > > Or with a file with a space: > > echo "blah" > "d"; > > echo "blah" > "d foo"; > > > > The TLDP's example doesn't move file "d foo". I get: > > mv: cannot stat `d': No such file or directory > > mv: cannot stat `foo': No such file or directory > > Just another case of missing double quotes. (Sigh) You missed the point... (see above about bash being incapable of passing a parameter safely) Explain to "me" where 'ANY' amount 'of' quoting will "fix" this ? If only to yourself... You can sorta do it with `find -print0`, a whispered admission to a bloated, blaring, gaping white elephant of a problem. I'd like to have a informed discussion, which, apparently, you either aren't interested in, or aren't capable of. Maybe if I alter the case? bASH IS INCAPABLE OF PASSING A PARAMETER safely. bAsH iS iNcApAbLe Of PaSsInG a PaRaMeTeR sAfElY. I mean, argue with me if you want on how my scripts are implemented but the previous two (TRUE) sentences sound like a philosophical deficiency to me. But seriously, why do you consider this OK? Is it an ego thing? -Ben -- Only those who reach toward a goal are likely to achieve it. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.