On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:31:24 -0500 Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > >>> What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at > >>> 'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff? > > > >> It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, > >> so we can bail out early. > > > > How can you tell that this behaviour won't be changed in a future > > bash version? > > > > Who's to say that in the future my computer won't be made out of > delicious ice cream, eliminating the need for EAPIs entirely? > > Chances are, this would break thousands of scripts, so we hope they > wouldn't do it. If it does happen, we either deal with it then, or > don't upgrade to that version of bash -- the same as we would do with > any other massive breaking change. Thousands of scripts? So... you're saying that people actually use thousands of scripts which have invalid syntax... Well, one thing I can think of now is makeself and similar. Those are indeed a quite good argument. But the main point here is that at some point someone may want to use a non-bash syntax for ebuilds. Or some kind of optional bash extension. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
