On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:25:31 +0200, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You know you could have just added an $ instead. I really think we >> should >> use parenthesis instead of backticks as the bash devs have marked >> backticks as deprecated and parenthesis are easier to nest (as well as >> more portable? - I've read some comment on that but can't give any >> source >> :/ ). > > I always prefered to use backticks instead. Sometimes I get confused > when I see $() and mentally read it as a variable. Having $() > colorized by the syntax highlighting also isn't that attractive.. I'm > not "against" using $(), I just don't like it that much. > Otoh I don't like backticks, just because I think it's harder to read. Just to add to my cause in this, one of the bugs with bash that was fixed with the patches I submitted to the recipe was a bug regarding the parsing of just backticks, even if it was a special case. >> At the same time I think we should use '. foo' instead of 'source foo', >> where the former is more portable (1). > > Ah, we're *requiring* Bash to interpret the scripts, so I don't think > portability is an issue. 'source' improves readability a lot. 'source' > support was even merged into Busybox' ash shell to conform to legacy > scripts. I strongly like to keep using 'source'. > Ok, if even busybox supports source, I think we can safely stick to that. :) >> Maybe have some document regarding recommended coding standards (if that >> doesn't exist and I've missed it). > > I think the only documentation we have in this sense is TemplateScript > in the Scripts package. Feeding the wiki might be a good thing. > -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
