Re: Question about associative array runtime assignment vs literal initialization

On 12/22/25 11:15 AM, Koichi Murase wrote:
> 2025年12月23日(火) 1:05 Koichi Murase <[email protected]>:
>>> hobbit:~$ declare -A aa="("${kv[@]}")"; declare -p aa
>>> declare -A aa=([3]="" [a]="half" [two]="and" [2.5]="three" [one]="1" )
>>
>> [...] In
>> this example, ${kv[@]} is outside the double quoting (because the
>> first double quotation is « "(" » and the second double quotation is «
>> ")" »), and then the bare ${kv[@]} is subject to word splitting
> 
> I'm sorry. Actually, my explanation above is wrong, because the
> right-hand side of the assignment for the declare builtin is not a
> context where word splitting.happens. The word splitting happens
> because the declare builtin receives the literal '(one 1 two 2 two and
> a half 2.5 three 3)' and parses it again. Anyway, the current behavior
> for the latter example is expected in my understanding.

"You can defer the expansion and let the declare builtin do it by adding a
layer of quoting. If you quote the rhs of the assignment statement, you
prevent it from being recognized as a compound assignment by the parser,
and it undergoes the `normal' string word expansions before the `declare'
builtin sees it.

For backwards compatiblity, declare accepts compound assignment statements
as arguments and treats them like standalone compound assignments. This
isn't how I would choose to do it today, but I did initially, and still
support it."

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    [email protected]    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wmMEABEIACMWIQR8ATX7CIqvbGbGULm7WGnwZOp0qwUCaUqxCAUDAAAAAAAKCRC7WGnwZOp0qxkm
AJ94LvLs7ixIcnAmeQgdYmsopyJjpwCeJAyJib/uEHhRibfmGLvcKChwldg=
=VAu5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----