threads / patch / 16114

patchRe: [PATCH] Avoid using non-portable `echo -n` in tests.

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid using non-portable `echo -n` in tests.

## tl;dr

4 messages between Oct 31, 2008 and Oct 31, 2008. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 3people: 3as markdown or json

Francis Galiegue· Oct 31, 2008, 19:50 UTC · lore

Le Friday 31 October 2008 19:39:33 Jeff King, vous avez écrit : [...]

>
> Agreed, and actually I found such a bashism (test ==) last week (though
> of course it also broke on FreeBSD).
>
As for bash-isms, a hunt for $(...) also looks necessary...

$ grep -rl '\$([^)]\+)' $(find -type f)|wc -l 272

Unless I'm mistaken (and I probably am), the $(...) construct is bash-specific, isn't it?

-- 
fge
Ian Hilt· Oct 31, 2008, 20:11 UTC · re: Francis Galiegue · lore
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 08:50:31PM +0100, Francis Galiegue wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> Le Friday 31 October 2008 19:39:33 Jeff King, vous avez écrit :
> [...]
> >
> > Agreed, and actually I found such a bashism (test ==) last week (though
> > of course it also broke on FreeBSD).
> >
> 
> As for bash-isms, a hunt for $(...) also looks necessary...
> 
> $ grep -rl '\$([^)]\+)' $(find -type f)|wc -l
> 272
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken (and I probably am), the $(...) construct is 
> bash-specific, isn't it?
Nope.  Read section 2.6.3 Command Substitution here,
<http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html>
Francis Galiegue· Oct 31, 2008, 20:30 UTC · re: Ian Hilt · lore

Le Friday 31 October 2008 21:11:27 Ian Hilt, vous avez écrit : [...]

Show 7 quoted lines
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken (and I probably am), the $(...) construct is
> > bash-specific, isn't it?
>
> Nope.  Read section 2.6.3 Command Substitution here,
>
> <http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html>
My bad, then. I'm too "old-school", I guess ;)
-- 
fge

← back to recent threads