Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I think the replies have established that either syntax is OK with the exception of csh and probably tcsh. In my mind the constructs are interchangeable. I don't have a preference and don't think we need to have a standard for BLFS. Demonstrating both ways is educational. That said, the method used in a package or group of related packages should be consistent.
I think it would be fine to do $(...) for the entire book, perhaps with one exception somewhere showing the backticks for educational value. I say this mostly because it avoids issues where people who aren't copying and pasting misread the '`' as a single quote. And for 99% of our users, $(...) will work just fine. The Linux world generally uses a compliant shell - whereas tcsh (or csh) the only one that doesn't seem to want to play, is used for the most part only in the BSDs.
-- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
