Could PATH contain newlines?












3














It is known that a path could contain newlines in any of its components.



Should we conclude then that the environment variable $PATH could contain newlines ?



If so, how to split the $PATH into its elements, similar to (Bourne like):



IFS=':' ; set -f
for var in $PATH
do
echo "<$var>"
done


But if it could be done without changing IFS, even better.










share|improve this question
























  • Note that in the Bourne shell (contrary to POSIX shells), /bin::/usr/bin would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, "" and /usr/bin.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 11:12










  • I can't reproduce. That preserving of empty elements for non-whitespace was introduced by the Korn shell, that's a very well known difference with the Bourne shell.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 16:55
















3














It is known that a path could contain newlines in any of its components.



Should we conclude then that the environment variable $PATH could contain newlines ?



If so, how to split the $PATH into its elements, similar to (Bourne like):



IFS=':' ; set -f
for var in $PATH
do
echo "<$var>"
done


But if it could be done without changing IFS, even better.










share|improve this question
























  • Note that in the Bourne shell (contrary to POSIX shells), /bin::/usr/bin would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, "" and /usr/bin.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 11:12










  • I can't reproduce. That preserving of empty elements for non-whitespace was introduced by the Korn shell, that's a very well known difference with the Bourne shell.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 16:55














3












3








3







It is known that a path could contain newlines in any of its components.



Should we conclude then that the environment variable $PATH could contain newlines ?



If so, how to split the $PATH into its elements, similar to (Bourne like):



IFS=':' ; set -f
for var in $PATH
do
echo "<$var>"
done


But if it could be done without changing IFS, even better.










share|improve this question















It is known that a path could contain newlines in any of its components.



Should we conclude then that the environment variable $PATH could contain newlines ?



If so, how to split the $PATH into its elements, similar to (Bourne like):



IFS=':' ; set -f
for var in $PATH
do
echo "<$var>"
done


But if it could be done without changing IFS, even better.







shell path newlines






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 31 '18 at 10:39









ilkkachu

56.1k784155




56.1k784155










asked Dec 31 '18 at 6:34









Isaac

11.2k11649




11.2k11649












  • Note that in the Bourne shell (contrary to POSIX shells), /bin::/usr/bin would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, "" and /usr/bin.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 11:12










  • I can't reproduce. That preserving of empty elements for non-whitespace was introduced by the Korn shell, that's a very well known difference with the Bourne shell.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 16:55


















  • Note that in the Bourne shell (contrary to POSIX shells), /bin::/usr/bin would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, "" and /usr/bin.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 11:12










  • I can't reproduce. That preserving of empty elements for non-whitespace was introduced by the Korn shell, that's a very well known difference with the Bourne shell.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 16:55
















Note that in the Bourne shell (contrary to POSIX shells), /bin::/usr/bin would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, "" and /usr/bin.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Dec 31 '18 at 11:12




Note that in the Bourne shell (contrary to POSIX shells), /bin::/usr/bin would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, "" and /usr/bin.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Dec 31 '18 at 11:12












I can't reproduce. That preserving of empty elements for non-whitespace was introduced by the Korn shell, that's a very well known difference with the Bourne shell.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Dec 31 '18 at 16:55




I can't reproduce. That preserving of empty elements for non-whitespace was introduced by the Korn shell, that's a very well known difference with the Bourne shell.
– Stéphane Chazelas
Dec 31 '18 at 16:55










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














In POSIX shells, $IFS is a field delimiter, not separator, so a $PATH value like /bin:/usr/bin: would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, /usr/bin and the empty string (meaning the current directory). You need:



IFS=:; set -o noglob
for var in $PATH""; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


To avoid modifying global settings, you can use a shell with explicit splitting operators like zsh:



for var in "${(s/:/@)PATH}"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


Though in that case, zsh already has the $path array tied to $PATH like in csh/tcsh, so:



for var in "$path[@]"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


In any case, yes, in theory $PATH like any variable could contain newline characters, the newline character is not special in any way when it comes to file path resolution. I don't expect anyone sensible would put a directory with newline (or wildcards) in their $PATH or name a command with newline in its name. It's also hard to imagine a scenario where someone could exploit a script that makes the assumption that $PATH won't contain newline characters.






share|improve this answer























  • Note that set -f is more portable than set -o noglob. (Yes, less legible, but what can we do?).
    – Isaac
    Jan 1 at 0:29












  • @Isaac (happy new year to you to). well, that's arguable. noglob is POSIX and not Bourne, but the Bourne shell didn't support splitting that way, so it's just as well that an error be reported in that case, to tell users to use a POSIX shell instead to interpret that script. On the other hand, zsh's -f option is the one from csh, not Bourne, except in sh emulation. Granted, there's no point splitting that way in zsh unless you're in sh emulation...
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    2 days ago










  • So, are you saying that because zsh took the rational decision of being non-compatible with all the other Bourne shell descendants on set -f we must use set -o noglob to be compatible with zsh?
    – Isaac
    2 days ago










  • I'm saying that set -o noglob is more portable among the shells that can run that code if we want to consider zsh -o shwordsplit -o globsubst in that list. set -f is more portable among ancient Bourne-like shells, but those shells that don't support set -o noglob cannot run that code correctly anyway. When zsh was written in 1990, csh/tcsh were by far the most popular shells at the time. All of ksh/bash/zsh borrowed features from csh (...)
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday










  • (...) csh had the -f option (for fast start) long before the Bourne shell added its -f to disable glob. So if you want to blame something for breaking compatibility, blame the Bourne (SysV) shell. There would be not reason why one would want to disable glob if it weren't for that bug of the Bourne shell whereby globbing is performed upon expansions. zsh fixed that bug, so set -o noglob is not needed there unless in sh emulation (where set -f works to disable it) or the globsubst option is enabled.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday





















2














Yes, PATH can contain newlines (even on ancient Unix system).



As to splitting any string in shell, the only way you can do it portably is with IFS. You can use IFS=:; set -f; set -- $PATH or pass it to a function instead of looping with for, though.



With bash you can also "read" a string into an array:



xtra=$'somenothernplacenn'; PATH="$PATH:$xtra"
mapfile -td: path < <(printf %s "$PATH")
printf '<%s>n' "${path[@]}"


But using arrays is usually not a good idea, because they can't be stored transparently in environment variables or passed as a single argument to external commands.



Notice that IFS will terminate fields, not separate them (kind of like n at the end of the file won't be treated like an empty line by programs reading the file line-by-line); if that's not what's expected, and you really want to create an extra empty field at the end when splitting a string that ends in a character from IFS, you should join an empty string after the variable that is subject to word splitting:



(P=/bin:; IFS=:; printf '<%s>n' $P"")
</bin>
<>


The word splitting algorithm will also ignore white space characters at the beginning of the string, if those whitespace characters are part of IFS. If you want an extra field for the leading whitespace, you should also join an empty string before the variable:



(P='   foo : bar  '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- $P; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<foo>
<bar>

(P=' foo : bar '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- ""$P""; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<>
<foo>
<bar>
<>





share|improve this answer























  • Using arrays is often an excellent idea, as a number of answers here on unix.SE show. It's almost impossible to handle lists of strings with arbitrary data without using an array. You only need lists of paths with whitespace, or a list of command arguments to get the issue. Of course you can use the positional parameters instead of an array, but those aren't any better regarding the points you mention: they can't be sanely pushed through the environment, nor passed as a single argument to external commands.
    – ilkkachu
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:32










  • No, you need the set -f to take effect before the $PATH expansion. So it should be set -o noglob; set -- $PATH""
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:41










  • @ilkkachu fwiw, quoting the here-string variable is not needed: x='a b'; mapfile -td: <<< $x y; printf '<%s>n' "$y"; but the added trailing newline is a problem, really.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:14










  • @ilkkachu and that's documented in the bash manual, under "Here Strings": "Pathname expansion and word splitting are not performed"
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:25










  • @StéphaneChazelas thanks, I've changed it to use a process substitution instead.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:36











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491706%2fcould-path-contain-newlines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














In POSIX shells, $IFS is a field delimiter, not separator, so a $PATH value like /bin:/usr/bin: would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, /usr/bin and the empty string (meaning the current directory). You need:



IFS=:; set -o noglob
for var in $PATH""; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


To avoid modifying global settings, you can use a shell with explicit splitting operators like zsh:



for var in "${(s/:/@)PATH}"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


Though in that case, zsh already has the $path array tied to $PATH like in csh/tcsh, so:



for var in "$path[@]"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


In any case, yes, in theory $PATH like any variable could contain newline characters, the newline character is not special in any way when it comes to file path resolution. I don't expect anyone sensible would put a directory with newline (or wildcards) in their $PATH or name a command with newline in its name. It's also hard to imagine a scenario where someone could exploit a script that makes the assumption that $PATH won't contain newline characters.






share|improve this answer























  • Note that set -f is more portable than set -o noglob. (Yes, less legible, but what can we do?).
    – Isaac
    Jan 1 at 0:29












  • @Isaac (happy new year to you to). well, that's arguable. noglob is POSIX and not Bourne, but the Bourne shell didn't support splitting that way, so it's just as well that an error be reported in that case, to tell users to use a POSIX shell instead to interpret that script. On the other hand, zsh's -f option is the one from csh, not Bourne, except in sh emulation. Granted, there's no point splitting that way in zsh unless you're in sh emulation...
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    2 days ago










  • So, are you saying that because zsh took the rational decision of being non-compatible with all the other Bourne shell descendants on set -f we must use set -o noglob to be compatible with zsh?
    – Isaac
    2 days ago










  • I'm saying that set -o noglob is more portable among the shells that can run that code if we want to consider zsh -o shwordsplit -o globsubst in that list. set -f is more portable among ancient Bourne-like shells, but those shells that don't support set -o noglob cannot run that code correctly anyway. When zsh was written in 1990, csh/tcsh were by far the most popular shells at the time. All of ksh/bash/zsh borrowed features from csh (...)
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday










  • (...) csh had the -f option (for fast start) long before the Bourne shell added its -f to disable glob. So if you want to blame something for breaking compatibility, blame the Bourne (SysV) shell. There would be not reason why one would want to disable glob if it weren't for that bug of the Bourne shell whereby globbing is performed upon expansions. zsh fixed that bug, so set -o noglob is not needed there unless in sh emulation (where set -f works to disable it) or the globsubst option is enabled.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday


















3














In POSIX shells, $IFS is a field delimiter, not separator, so a $PATH value like /bin:/usr/bin: would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, /usr/bin and the empty string (meaning the current directory). You need:



IFS=:; set -o noglob
for var in $PATH""; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


To avoid modifying global settings, you can use a shell with explicit splitting operators like zsh:



for var in "${(s/:/@)PATH}"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


Though in that case, zsh already has the $path array tied to $PATH like in csh/tcsh, so:



for var in "$path[@]"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


In any case, yes, in theory $PATH like any variable could contain newline characters, the newline character is not special in any way when it comes to file path resolution. I don't expect anyone sensible would put a directory with newline (or wildcards) in their $PATH or name a command with newline in its name. It's also hard to imagine a scenario where someone could exploit a script that makes the assumption that $PATH won't contain newline characters.






share|improve this answer























  • Note that set -f is more portable than set -o noglob. (Yes, less legible, but what can we do?).
    – Isaac
    Jan 1 at 0:29












  • @Isaac (happy new year to you to). well, that's arguable. noglob is POSIX and not Bourne, but the Bourne shell didn't support splitting that way, so it's just as well that an error be reported in that case, to tell users to use a POSIX shell instead to interpret that script. On the other hand, zsh's -f option is the one from csh, not Bourne, except in sh emulation. Granted, there's no point splitting that way in zsh unless you're in sh emulation...
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    2 days ago










  • So, are you saying that because zsh took the rational decision of being non-compatible with all the other Bourne shell descendants on set -f we must use set -o noglob to be compatible with zsh?
    – Isaac
    2 days ago










  • I'm saying that set -o noglob is more portable among the shells that can run that code if we want to consider zsh -o shwordsplit -o globsubst in that list. set -f is more portable among ancient Bourne-like shells, but those shells that don't support set -o noglob cannot run that code correctly anyway. When zsh was written in 1990, csh/tcsh were by far the most popular shells at the time. All of ksh/bash/zsh borrowed features from csh (...)
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday










  • (...) csh had the -f option (for fast start) long before the Bourne shell added its -f to disable glob. So if you want to blame something for breaking compatibility, blame the Bourne (SysV) shell. There would be not reason why one would want to disable glob if it weren't for that bug of the Bourne shell whereby globbing is performed upon expansions. zsh fixed that bug, so set -o noglob is not needed there unless in sh emulation (where set -f works to disable it) or the globsubst option is enabled.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday
















3












3








3






In POSIX shells, $IFS is a field delimiter, not separator, so a $PATH value like /bin:/usr/bin: would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, /usr/bin and the empty string (meaning the current directory). You need:



IFS=:; set -o noglob
for var in $PATH""; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


To avoid modifying global settings, you can use a shell with explicit splitting operators like zsh:



for var in "${(s/:/@)PATH}"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


Though in that case, zsh already has the $path array tied to $PATH like in csh/tcsh, so:



for var in "$path[@]"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


In any case, yes, in theory $PATH like any variable could contain newline characters, the newline character is not special in any way when it comes to file path resolution. I don't expect anyone sensible would put a directory with newline (or wildcards) in their $PATH or name a command with newline in its name. It's also hard to imagine a scenario where someone could exploit a script that makes the assumption that $PATH won't contain newline characters.






share|improve this answer














In POSIX shells, $IFS is a field delimiter, not separator, so a $PATH value like /bin:/usr/bin: would be split into /bin and /usr/bin instead of /bin, /usr/bin and the empty string (meaning the current directory). You need:



IFS=:; set -o noglob
for var in $PATH""; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


To avoid modifying global settings, you can use a shell with explicit splitting operators like zsh:



for var in "${(s/:/@)PATH}"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


Though in that case, zsh already has the $path array tied to $PATH like in csh/tcsh, so:



for var in "$path[@]"; do
printf '<%s>n' "$var"
done


In any case, yes, in theory $PATH like any variable could contain newline characters, the newline character is not special in any way when it comes to file path resolution. I don't expect anyone sensible would put a directory with newline (or wildcards) in their $PATH or name a command with newline in its name. It's also hard to imagine a scenario where someone could exploit a script that makes the assumption that $PATH won't contain newline characters.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 31 '18 at 11:17

























answered Dec 31 '18 at 10:46









Stéphane Chazelas

300k54564913




300k54564913












  • Note that set -f is more portable than set -o noglob. (Yes, less legible, but what can we do?).
    – Isaac
    Jan 1 at 0:29












  • @Isaac (happy new year to you to). well, that's arguable. noglob is POSIX and not Bourne, but the Bourne shell didn't support splitting that way, so it's just as well that an error be reported in that case, to tell users to use a POSIX shell instead to interpret that script. On the other hand, zsh's -f option is the one from csh, not Bourne, except in sh emulation. Granted, there's no point splitting that way in zsh unless you're in sh emulation...
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    2 days ago










  • So, are you saying that because zsh took the rational decision of being non-compatible with all the other Bourne shell descendants on set -f we must use set -o noglob to be compatible with zsh?
    – Isaac
    2 days ago










  • I'm saying that set -o noglob is more portable among the shells that can run that code if we want to consider zsh -o shwordsplit -o globsubst in that list. set -f is more portable among ancient Bourne-like shells, but those shells that don't support set -o noglob cannot run that code correctly anyway. When zsh was written in 1990, csh/tcsh were by far the most popular shells at the time. All of ksh/bash/zsh borrowed features from csh (...)
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday










  • (...) csh had the -f option (for fast start) long before the Bourne shell added its -f to disable glob. So if you want to blame something for breaking compatibility, blame the Bourne (SysV) shell. There would be not reason why one would want to disable glob if it weren't for that bug of the Bourne shell whereby globbing is performed upon expansions. zsh fixed that bug, so set -o noglob is not needed there unless in sh emulation (where set -f works to disable it) or the globsubst option is enabled.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday




















  • Note that set -f is more portable than set -o noglob. (Yes, less legible, but what can we do?).
    – Isaac
    Jan 1 at 0:29












  • @Isaac (happy new year to you to). well, that's arguable. noglob is POSIX and not Bourne, but the Bourne shell didn't support splitting that way, so it's just as well that an error be reported in that case, to tell users to use a POSIX shell instead to interpret that script. On the other hand, zsh's -f option is the one from csh, not Bourne, except in sh emulation. Granted, there's no point splitting that way in zsh unless you're in sh emulation...
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    2 days ago










  • So, are you saying that because zsh took the rational decision of being non-compatible with all the other Bourne shell descendants on set -f we must use set -o noglob to be compatible with zsh?
    – Isaac
    2 days ago










  • I'm saying that set -o noglob is more portable among the shells that can run that code if we want to consider zsh -o shwordsplit -o globsubst in that list. set -f is more portable among ancient Bourne-like shells, but those shells that don't support set -o noglob cannot run that code correctly anyway. When zsh was written in 1990, csh/tcsh were by far the most popular shells at the time. All of ksh/bash/zsh borrowed features from csh (...)
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday










  • (...) csh had the -f option (for fast start) long before the Bourne shell added its -f to disable glob. So if you want to blame something for breaking compatibility, blame the Bourne (SysV) shell. There would be not reason why one would want to disable glob if it weren't for that bug of the Bourne shell whereby globbing is performed upon expansions. zsh fixed that bug, so set -o noglob is not needed there unless in sh emulation (where set -f works to disable it) or the globsubst option is enabled.
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    yesterday


















Note that set -f is more portable than set -o noglob. (Yes, less legible, but what can we do?).
– Isaac
Jan 1 at 0:29






Note that set -f is more portable than set -o noglob. (Yes, less legible, but what can we do?).
– Isaac
Jan 1 at 0:29














@Isaac (happy new year to you to). well, that's arguable. noglob is POSIX and not Bourne, but the Bourne shell didn't support splitting that way, so it's just as well that an error be reported in that case, to tell users to use a POSIX shell instead to interpret that script. On the other hand, zsh's -f option is the one from csh, not Bourne, except in sh emulation. Granted, there's no point splitting that way in zsh unless you're in sh emulation...
– Stéphane Chazelas
2 days ago




@Isaac (happy new year to you to). well, that's arguable. noglob is POSIX and not Bourne, but the Bourne shell didn't support splitting that way, so it's just as well that an error be reported in that case, to tell users to use a POSIX shell instead to interpret that script. On the other hand, zsh's -f option is the one from csh, not Bourne, except in sh emulation. Granted, there's no point splitting that way in zsh unless you're in sh emulation...
– Stéphane Chazelas
2 days ago












So, are you saying that because zsh took the rational decision of being non-compatible with all the other Bourne shell descendants on set -f we must use set -o noglob to be compatible with zsh?
– Isaac
2 days ago




So, are you saying that because zsh took the rational decision of being non-compatible with all the other Bourne shell descendants on set -f we must use set -o noglob to be compatible with zsh?
– Isaac
2 days ago












I'm saying that set -o noglob is more portable among the shells that can run that code if we want to consider zsh -o shwordsplit -o globsubst in that list. set -f is more portable among ancient Bourne-like shells, but those shells that don't support set -o noglob cannot run that code correctly anyway. When zsh was written in 1990, csh/tcsh were by far the most popular shells at the time. All of ksh/bash/zsh borrowed features from csh (...)
– Stéphane Chazelas
yesterday




I'm saying that set -o noglob is more portable among the shells that can run that code if we want to consider zsh -o shwordsplit -o globsubst in that list. set -f is more portable among ancient Bourne-like shells, but those shells that don't support set -o noglob cannot run that code correctly anyway. When zsh was written in 1990, csh/tcsh were by far the most popular shells at the time. All of ksh/bash/zsh borrowed features from csh (...)
– Stéphane Chazelas
yesterday












(...) csh had the -f option (for fast start) long before the Bourne shell added its -f to disable glob. So if you want to blame something for breaking compatibility, blame the Bourne (SysV) shell. There would be not reason why one would want to disable glob if it weren't for that bug of the Bourne shell whereby globbing is performed upon expansions. zsh fixed that bug, so set -o noglob is not needed there unless in sh emulation (where set -f works to disable it) or the globsubst option is enabled.
– Stéphane Chazelas
yesterday






(...) csh had the -f option (for fast start) long before the Bourne shell added its -f to disable glob. So if you want to blame something for breaking compatibility, blame the Bourne (SysV) shell. There would be not reason why one would want to disable glob if it weren't for that bug of the Bourne shell whereby globbing is performed upon expansions. zsh fixed that bug, so set -o noglob is not needed there unless in sh emulation (where set -f works to disable it) or the globsubst option is enabled.
– Stéphane Chazelas
yesterday















2














Yes, PATH can contain newlines (even on ancient Unix system).



As to splitting any string in shell, the only way you can do it portably is with IFS. You can use IFS=:; set -f; set -- $PATH or pass it to a function instead of looping with for, though.



With bash you can also "read" a string into an array:



xtra=$'somenothernplacenn'; PATH="$PATH:$xtra"
mapfile -td: path < <(printf %s "$PATH")
printf '<%s>n' "${path[@]}"


But using arrays is usually not a good idea, because they can't be stored transparently in environment variables or passed as a single argument to external commands.



Notice that IFS will terminate fields, not separate them (kind of like n at the end of the file won't be treated like an empty line by programs reading the file line-by-line); if that's not what's expected, and you really want to create an extra empty field at the end when splitting a string that ends in a character from IFS, you should join an empty string after the variable that is subject to word splitting:



(P=/bin:; IFS=:; printf '<%s>n' $P"")
</bin>
<>


The word splitting algorithm will also ignore white space characters at the beginning of the string, if those whitespace characters are part of IFS. If you want an extra field for the leading whitespace, you should also join an empty string before the variable:



(P='   foo : bar  '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- $P; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<foo>
<bar>

(P=' foo : bar '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- ""$P""; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<>
<foo>
<bar>
<>





share|improve this answer























  • Using arrays is often an excellent idea, as a number of answers here on unix.SE show. It's almost impossible to handle lists of strings with arbitrary data without using an array. You only need lists of paths with whitespace, or a list of command arguments to get the issue. Of course you can use the positional parameters instead of an array, but those aren't any better regarding the points you mention: they can't be sanely pushed through the environment, nor passed as a single argument to external commands.
    – ilkkachu
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:32










  • No, you need the set -f to take effect before the $PATH expansion. So it should be set -o noglob; set -- $PATH""
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:41










  • @ilkkachu fwiw, quoting the here-string variable is not needed: x='a b'; mapfile -td: <<< $x y; printf '<%s>n' "$y"; but the added trailing newline is a problem, really.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:14










  • @ilkkachu and that's documented in the bash manual, under "Here Strings": "Pathname expansion and word splitting are not performed"
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:25










  • @StéphaneChazelas thanks, I've changed it to use a process substitution instead.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:36
















2














Yes, PATH can contain newlines (even on ancient Unix system).



As to splitting any string in shell, the only way you can do it portably is with IFS. You can use IFS=:; set -f; set -- $PATH or pass it to a function instead of looping with for, though.



With bash you can also "read" a string into an array:



xtra=$'somenothernplacenn'; PATH="$PATH:$xtra"
mapfile -td: path < <(printf %s "$PATH")
printf '<%s>n' "${path[@]}"


But using arrays is usually not a good idea, because they can't be stored transparently in environment variables or passed as a single argument to external commands.



Notice that IFS will terminate fields, not separate them (kind of like n at the end of the file won't be treated like an empty line by programs reading the file line-by-line); if that's not what's expected, and you really want to create an extra empty field at the end when splitting a string that ends in a character from IFS, you should join an empty string after the variable that is subject to word splitting:



(P=/bin:; IFS=:; printf '<%s>n' $P"")
</bin>
<>


The word splitting algorithm will also ignore white space characters at the beginning of the string, if those whitespace characters are part of IFS. If you want an extra field for the leading whitespace, you should also join an empty string before the variable:



(P='   foo : bar  '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- $P; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<foo>
<bar>

(P=' foo : bar '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- ""$P""; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<>
<foo>
<bar>
<>





share|improve this answer























  • Using arrays is often an excellent idea, as a number of answers here on unix.SE show. It's almost impossible to handle lists of strings with arbitrary data without using an array. You only need lists of paths with whitespace, or a list of command arguments to get the issue. Of course you can use the positional parameters instead of an array, but those aren't any better regarding the points you mention: they can't be sanely pushed through the environment, nor passed as a single argument to external commands.
    – ilkkachu
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:32










  • No, you need the set -f to take effect before the $PATH expansion. So it should be set -o noglob; set -- $PATH""
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:41










  • @ilkkachu fwiw, quoting the here-string variable is not needed: x='a b'; mapfile -td: <<< $x y; printf '<%s>n' "$y"; but the added trailing newline is a problem, really.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:14










  • @ilkkachu and that's documented in the bash manual, under "Here Strings": "Pathname expansion and word splitting are not performed"
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:25










  • @StéphaneChazelas thanks, I've changed it to use a process substitution instead.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:36














2












2








2






Yes, PATH can contain newlines (even on ancient Unix system).



As to splitting any string in shell, the only way you can do it portably is with IFS. You can use IFS=:; set -f; set -- $PATH or pass it to a function instead of looping with for, though.



With bash you can also "read" a string into an array:



xtra=$'somenothernplacenn'; PATH="$PATH:$xtra"
mapfile -td: path < <(printf %s "$PATH")
printf '<%s>n' "${path[@]}"


But using arrays is usually not a good idea, because they can't be stored transparently in environment variables or passed as a single argument to external commands.



Notice that IFS will terminate fields, not separate them (kind of like n at the end of the file won't be treated like an empty line by programs reading the file line-by-line); if that's not what's expected, and you really want to create an extra empty field at the end when splitting a string that ends in a character from IFS, you should join an empty string after the variable that is subject to word splitting:



(P=/bin:; IFS=:; printf '<%s>n' $P"")
</bin>
<>


The word splitting algorithm will also ignore white space characters at the beginning of the string, if those whitespace characters are part of IFS. If you want an extra field for the leading whitespace, you should also join an empty string before the variable:



(P='   foo : bar  '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- $P; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<foo>
<bar>

(P=' foo : bar '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- ""$P""; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<>
<foo>
<bar>
<>





share|improve this answer














Yes, PATH can contain newlines (even on ancient Unix system).



As to splitting any string in shell, the only way you can do it portably is with IFS. You can use IFS=:; set -f; set -- $PATH or pass it to a function instead of looping with for, though.



With bash you can also "read" a string into an array:



xtra=$'somenothernplacenn'; PATH="$PATH:$xtra"
mapfile -td: path < <(printf %s "$PATH")
printf '<%s>n' "${path[@]}"


But using arrays is usually not a good idea, because they can't be stored transparently in environment variables or passed as a single argument to external commands.



Notice that IFS will terminate fields, not separate them (kind of like n at the end of the file won't be treated like an empty line by programs reading the file line-by-line); if that's not what's expected, and you really want to create an extra empty field at the end when splitting a string that ends in a character from IFS, you should join an empty string after the variable that is subject to word splitting:



(P=/bin:; IFS=:; printf '<%s>n' $P"")
</bin>
<>


The word splitting algorithm will also ignore white space characters at the beginning of the string, if those whitespace characters are part of IFS. If you want an extra field for the leading whitespace, you should also join an empty string before the variable:



(P='   foo : bar  '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- $P; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<foo>
<bar>

(P=' foo : bar '; IFS=': '; set -f; set -- ""$P""; printf '<%s>n' "$@")
<>
<foo>
<bar>
<>






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 days ago

























answered Dec 31 '18 at 9:20









pizdelect

36716




36716












  • Using arrays is often an excellent idea, as a number of answers here on unix.SE show. It's almost impossible to handle lists of strings with arbitrary data without using an array. You only need lists of paths with whitespace, or a list of command arguments to get the issue. Of course you can use the positional parameters instead of an array, but those aren't any better regarding the points you mention: they can't be sanely pushed through the environment, nor passed as a single argument to external commands.
    – ilkkachu
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:32










  • No, you need the set -f to take effect before the $PATH expansion. So it should be set -o noglob; set -- $PATH""
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:41










  • @ilkkachu fwiw, quoting the here-string variable is not needed: x='a b'; mapfile -td: <<< $x y; printf '<%s>n' "$y"; but the added trailing newline is a problem, really.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:14










  • @ilkkachu and that's documented in the bash manual, under "Here Strings": "Pathname expansion and word splitting are not performed"
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:25










  • @StéphaneChazelas thanks, I've changed it to use a process substitution instead.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:36


















  • Using arrays is often an excellent idea, as a number of answers here on unix.SE show. It's almost impossible to handle lists of strings with arbitrary data without using an array. You only need lists of paths with whitespace, or a list of command arguments to get the issue. Of course you can use the positional parameters instead of an array, but those aren't any better regarding the points you mention: they can't be sanely pushed through the environment, nor passed as a single argument to external commands.
    – ilkkachu
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:32










  • No, you need the set -f to take effect before the $PATH expansion. So it should be set -o noglob; set -- $PATH""
    – Stéphane Chazelas
    Dec 31 '18 at 10:41










  • @ilkkachu fwiw, quoting the here-string variable is not needed: x='a b'; mapfile -td: <<< $x y; printf '<%s>n' "$y"; but the added trailing newline is a problem, really.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:14










  • @ilkkachu and that's documented in the bash manual, under "Here Strings": "Pathname expansion and word splitting are not performed"
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:25










  • @StéphaneChazelas thanks, I've changed it to use a process substitution instead.
    – pizdelect
    Dec 31 '18 at 12:36
















Using arrays is often an excellent idea, as a number of answers here on unix.SE show. It's almost impossible to handle lists of strings with arbitrary data without using an array. You only need lists of paths with whitespace, or a list of command arguments to get the issue. Of course you can use the positional parameters instead of an array, but those aren't any better regarding the points you mention: they can't be sanely pushed through the environment, nor passed as a single argument to external commands.
– ilkkachu
Dec 31 '18 at 10:32




Using arrays is often an excellent idea, as a number of answers here on unix.SE show. It's almost impossible to handle lists of strings with arbitrary data without using an array. You only need lists of paths with whitespace, or a list of command arguments to get the issue. Of course you can use the positional parameters instead of an array, but those aren't any better regarding the points you mention: they can't be sanely pushed through the environment, nor passed as a single argument to external commands.
– ilkkachu
Dec 31 '18 at 10:32












No, you need the set -f to take effect before the $PATH expansion. So it should be set -o noglob; set -- $PATH""
– Stéphane Chazelas
Dec 31 '18 at 10:41




No, you need the set -f to take effect before the $PATH expansion. So it should be set -o noglob; set -- $PATH""
– Stéphane Chazelas
Dec 31 '18 at 10:41












@ilkkachu fwiw, quoting the here-string variable is not needed: x='a b'; mapfile -td: <<< $x y; printf '<%s>n' "$y"; but the added trailing newline is a problem, really.
– pizdelect
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14




@ilkkachu fwiw, quoting the here-string variable is not needed: x='a b'; mapfile -td: <<< $x y; printf '<%s>n' "$y"; but the added trailing newline is a problem, really.
– pizdelect
Dec 31 '18 at 12:14












@ilkkachu and that's documented in the bash manual, under "Here Strings": "Pathname expansion and word splitting are not performed"
– pizdelect
Dec 31 '18 at 12:25




@ilkkachu and that's documented in the bash manual, under "Here Strings": "Pathname expansion and word splitting are not performed"
– pizdelect
Dec 31 '18 at 12:25












@StéphaneChazelas thanks, I've changed it to use a process substitution instead.
– pizdelect
Dec 31 '18 at 12:36




@StéphaneChazelas thanks, I've changed it to use a process substitution instead.
– pizdelect
Dec 31 '18 at 12:36


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491706%2fcould-path-contain-newlines%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Сан-Квентин

Алькесар

Josef Freinademetz