Re: Shell script cleanups/style changes?

From: Robert Schiele <rschiele@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 2, 2007, 23:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20070802232754.GV29424@schiele.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <85vebxy47e.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 12:14:13AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:

> A non-working rebase would seem rather tough.

It depends on how you work. I for example always just push any change to a linux machine where I do the actual integration work. Thus I don't need much commands on the Solaris machine.

Show 5 quoted lines

> The "issues" are with Solaris, apparently.  There is always a price
> for portability.  If Solaris users can fix their problems with a
> global search and replace of the first line in *.sh, the question is
> whether it is worth the hassle of having unreadable but "portable"
> code.  After all, it has to be read also by humans.

Ok, but then we needed an infrastructure to replace the shell with a configuration parameter.

Show 5 quoted lines

> You are missing the line
> $ echo $0
> which is probably the most interesting one...  we don't need to be
> compatible with everything having a "$ " prompt, just with everything
> called "/bin/sh".

Your way of telling people that you are considering everybody besides you to be a moron is somehow insulting. You might wish to change that.

Sure I tested in on /bin/sh!

> See the rationale in my recently posted patch for implementing
> EDITOR/VISUAL support.  One needs to shell-quote stuff properly, and
> the shell is better at shell-quote magic than C is.

Ok, will look up that later.

> If you prepare a patch replacing all existing ${parameter#word} uses
> and get it accepted, I will not push for inclusion of my cleanup.
> 
> But you _really_ should go for it _now_.

I have it ready now.  Just waiting for the answer of Junio to my last mail.

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker	mailto:rschiele@gmail.com

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."