Loosing arguments in KSH script

[DGRFL]

Hello,

The following script one.sh calls second.sh using the '.' operator (in order to retain environment variables defined in second.sh)

After the execution of second.sh, the original command line arguments $1,etc are lost.

#!/usr/bin/ksh
# first.sh : call this script with arguments a,b,c,d,e
echo parm5 $5
# output is 'e'
one=$1
second.sh $one
echo parm5 $5
# output is 'e'
. second.sh $one
echo parm5 $5
# output is blank


#!/usr/bin/ksh
# second.sh : this script is called by first.sh
echo second shell $1


How can we avoid this problem ? (Saving the arguments in additional variables $p1, $p2, ... would work, but I don't like this solution)


Best regards,

Luc

 

[MikeLacey]

could you try

. second.sh $*
Mike
michael.j.lacey@ntlworld.com
Email welcome if you're in a hurry or something -- but post in tek-tips as well please, and I will post my reply here as well.

 

[DGRFL]

Hello,
I tried your suggestion $*, and it is an improvement but no complete solution.

- In first instance, the 'original production version' of second.sh script calls other scripts (among others .profile) with the dot operator, so I have to pass $* throughout the complete shell script tree.

- The arguments that are to be passed are not a,b,c,d,e but the fifth argument contains embedded blanks. So this is the new version of first.sh

#!/usr/bin/ksh
# first.sh : call it as first.sh a b c d 'e e'
echo parm5 $5
# output is 'e e' (without the quotes) as expected
second.sh $*
echo parm5 $5
# output is 'e e'
. second.sh $*
echo parm5 $5
# output is 'e'

Why have I lost the second part of the argument ?

Regards
Luc

 

[MikeLacey]

From another post in this forum -- try

first.sh a b c d "'e e'"

(enclose the single quoted string in double quotes) Mike
michael.j.lacey@ntlworld.com
Email welcome if you're in a hurry or something -- but post in tek-tips as well please, and I will post my reply here as well.

 

[DGRFL]

Hello,

It is an improvement, but we need to use these scripts combined with 'rsh', and then it becomes a terrible mess.

I will adapt the $1, $2... with $p1,$p2. It is not a nice solution, but it works.

Thanks for the advice

Luc