From: Ángel González <ingenit@zoho.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:48:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove "bashism" from contrib/thunderbird-patch-inline/appp.sh
Message-ID: <4D9261AE.5070103@zoho.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vei5qtnc5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ángel González <ingenit@zoho.com> writes:
> 
>> This is wrong.
> 
> Not really.
> 
>> You are replacing bash with sh:
>>> -#!/bin/bash
>>> +#!/bin/sh
>>
>> but the script still uses bash-specific syntax (aka. bashishms):
> 
> Do you mean some of the parts you quoted are bashism?

I was pointing to the $( ) as a bashishm

>>>  PATCH=$(zenity --file-selection)
> 
> Even though ancient shells I grew up with did not have $(), it is a way
> backticks should have been written by Bourne from day one.  Historically,
> handling nesting and interraction between double-quotes and backticks
> correctly was a nightmare to get right, and different implementations of
> shells got them always wrong.  If you use $(), the headaches go away.

> These days, we don't know of any POSIX shell that is widely used and does
> not understand $().  As such, the above construct is perfectly safe and
> even preferred over ``.  Welcome to the 21st century ;-)
>
> The only major platform that didn't have a reasonable shell was Solaris,
> but we already have written its /bin/sh off as broken and unusable, and
> suggest people to use xpg4 or xpg6 shell (see the Makefile).

I have to agree with you. $() is a much saner syntax. Still, the goal
was portability.
Reading your message, and considering the Solaris note, it might have
been fine as it was. I have also checked the "Shell Command Language"
section of IEEE Std 1003.1 and it does require $() use.

Albeit being a single line I would still change it, it is now a much
weaker position. Thanks for your insight.