Re: inconsistent treatment of backslash-bang"

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Chet Ramey wrote:

>> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, this is where the semantics of history expansion clash with traditional
>>> shell behavior. Only single quotes inhibit history expansion.
>> 
>> In that case, situation number 3 is producing the wrong result, since there
>> are no single quotes there, only a backslash.
> 
> OK, you got me.  Unquoted backslashes inhibit history expansion also.

But how come the backslash in double-quotes is both 1) inhibiting history
expansion, and 2) causing a backslash to be printed?

If it was being treated purely as a literal backslash, I would expect the
same output as case 1 in my bug report. If it was meant to be inhibiting
history expansion, I would not expect to see it printed as well. Either do
one or the other, not both.

Do you begin to see the inconsistency here?