Nested extglob outputs "." ".."

[Michal Pesa]

Hello, I have encountered a strange behavior of nested extended globs:

$ echo *
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt 0.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(0.txt)
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(+(0).txt)
. .. a.txt b.txt c.txt

The last example correctly excludes the files but why are "." ".." being
printed?

Thank you for your time.

Configuration Information:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS:  -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='x86_64'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='x86_64-pc-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/locale' -DPACKAGE='bash'
-DSHELL -DHAVE_$
uname output: Linux pish-lub 4.15.0-29-generic #31-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jul 17
15:39:52 UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Machine Type: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Bash Version: 4.4
Patch Level: 19
Release Status: release

[Greg Wooledge]

Post by Michal Pesa
$ echo *
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt 0.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(0.txt)
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(+(0).txt)
. .. a.txt b.txt c.txt
The last example correctly excludes the files but why are "." ".." being
printed?

This appears to be fixed already in bash 5.0-alpha.

[Chet Ramey]

Post by Michal Pesa
$ echo *
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt 0.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(0.txt)
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(+(0).txt)
. .. a.txt b.txt c.txt
The last example correctly excludes the files but why are "." ".." being
printed?

This was changed back in January as the result of a discussion started by

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2017-12/msg00074.html

Chet

[Michal Pesa]

My bad, sorry for not searching properly before asking. Thank you for
your time.

Post by Chet Ramey

Post by Michal Pesa
$ echo *
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt 0.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(0.txt)
0000.txt 000.txt 00.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(+(0).txt)
. .. a.txt b.txt c.txt
The last example correctly excludes the files but why are "." ".." being
printed?

This was changed back in January as the result of a discussion started by
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2017-12/msg00074.html
Chet

[Chet Ramey]

My bad, sorry for not searching properly before asking. Thank you for your
time.

No problem, you should always report against the latest version you have.

Chet