Hi David , On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 06:28 +1000, David Holmes wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 19/11/2013 1:34 AM, Dave Pointon wrote: > > <snip> > > Minor style nit but note that the pattern used everywhere is x$FOO = x. > So changing to use "j" or "r" is undesirable. >
OK, TFT. It was merely an obviously misguided attempt to imbue the constant with unwanted meaning. > MOre generally this seems solvable simply by changing the existing error > message to "an executable binary file for XXXX could not be found" - and > the user could see if it was missing or just not marked executable. :) > Possibly, I was trying to implement a solution that covered the bases that I encountered when attempting to track the problem down in as near to good SW Eng practice e.g. SPoD etc., as I could manage. > Re-use of the BOOTJDK_CHECK_TOOL_IN_BOOTJDK macro seems reasonable but I > don't think you really need to include the _WITH_OPT_ABORT in the name. > The macro name is intended to reflect the fact that a failed call may, or may not, cause the immediate cessation of the script according to the value of the 3rd arg - there are a couple of instances where the script doesn't immediately abort, it attempts to recover from the failure - the fact that this attempt invariably fails is neither here nor there :-) > I'm sure Magnus will have more comments. > > Cheers, > David H. > > > > > TIA & rgds , > > > Rgds , -- Dave Pointon FIAP MBCS Now I saw, tho' too late, the folly of beginning a work before we count the cost and before we we judge rightly of our strength to go thro' with it - Robinson Crusoe
