We have application that feeds to a script. It has 3 variables and I am passing it as arguments.

script_name $1 $2 $3

The $1 and $2 is a string while $3 consist of bunch of strings with new line. I notice if there is new line, it was not able to receive properly but if it is a one line there is no issue.

Any recommendation or is it not possible to use argument with new line?

Check out this link declare the variable as an array.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...an-empty-array

list=$@

then try script_name "$@" or $list

check out this one also: https://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/arrays.html

not tested

Thank you. Will check it

The Bash manual is one of the best sources of information on shells (even if using a non-Bash shell; it splits the POSIX and Bash-specific stuff out). Section 3.1 is relevant here.

There's also the BashFAQ, and again you really should read and understand the "Arguments" page.

3 members found this post helpful.

The key is quoting.
or the adaptive

1 members found this post helpful.

You're not much help.
Forums exist because the majority of people would rather not waste time reading.

That statement is wrong. People need to read anyway, either the original page or the forum. But without reading it won't work.
Copying huge amount of text into LQ is meaningless too.

Anyway, this is a problem with quotation (of arguments). You can either drop in a quick-fix (without comments) or try to explain what went wrong and how can anyone fix it - not only now, but next time too.
Additionally you can suggest external sites (like shellcheck) to analyze the script and help without waiting for any kind of response here.

1 members found this post helpful.

The reason I don't ask questions is because Google is my homepage, I know how to read and comprehend what I read.
People with a life beyond the keyboard would rather spend more time doing life.

LQ exists [in part] so people can be pointed at the correct places to read, and not waste time reading inaccurate or outdated information.

(Forums exist as an evolution of earlier technologies, bringing the advantages of hypertext without bias on how proactive/lazy its posters may or not be.)

1 members found this post helpful.

You seem to speak for others, in particular a certain type of user who puts in little effort, but instead leeches off others. By that you imply that the leeches have a "life" and those providing help do not [thus they have the time to support the leeches].

I see it slightly differently in that proprietary OS and paid support for distributions such as RHEL exist for example...

1 members found this post helpful.

What I'm saying:
Your average 5 year old can do that, Google up the literature and post some links:
"Here you go idiot, I did the hard work for you" as if to imply the OP didn't have brains enough to figure out the proper keywords to Google it on their own. The OP likely either saw the links or visited them already.

I see that as being snotty rather than helpful.

And this is just wrong. This is when you want to reject the help even before you get it.

Brains, you may like to remind yourself of the LQ rules, particularly the top portion of bullet points.

If you think my post violated the rules, feel free to report it to the moderator. (I doubt they agree with you, but maybe I'm wrong; I welcome constructive feedback.)

If you think the rules need to be updated to prohibit linking to relevant documentation, go ahead and start a discussion in LQ Suggestions & Feedback, where it will not be taking a thread off-topic.

On which note...

packets: If you have any follow-up questions or clarification needed about passing arguments to a script (whether individually, as arrays, whatever), please do to post them; otherwise you might like to use Thread Tools to mark the thread as solved.

There are certainly web users who post "google it" and have the kind of attitude you allude to - I've seen it elsewhere where they can become prolific posters if allowed to run unchecked, such as the Debian forums some years ago for example, not so much here at LQ - and I'm very much of the same view that you are, when it comes to such web users.

boughtonp's post does not fit that category. That post does not contain advice to use a search engine, nor links to search engines - it contains links to documentation and it's informative. In my view you've shot from the hip, and should reconsider your response.