On 2/15/11 12:18 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2011-02-15 8:09 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On 2/15/11 2:13 AM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Peter Wagner<[email protected]> writes:
- [ -n "$leasefile" ]&& [ -e "$leasefile" ] || touch "$leasefile"
+ [ -n "$leasefile" ]&& ( [ -e "$leasefile" ] || touch "$leasefile" )
Looks like this is fixed already by commit 15fba44a (but see point 6 of
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls and the rest for an interesting
read) so the following is academic, but I typed it before checking...
It's cheeper to use braces in such cases to avoid subshell creation:
[ -n "$leasefile" ]&& { [ -e "$leasefile" ] || touch
"$leasefile"; }
Btw. is the -e test really necessary? Why not simply
[ -n "$leasefile" ]&& touch "$leasefile"
?
Well, to use your own point... why create an extra process to "touch" a file
that already exists?
And if it does exist, do you necessarily want to modify the timestamp on it?
https://dev.openwrt.org/changeset/25540 - committed more than 24 hours
ago, rendering much of this discussion irrelevant ;)
Well, if the discussion offers would-be contributors an inkling of what a
'style guide' would contain, then that's a good thing, right?
I enjoyed the discussion on Bastian's suggestions (perhaps more than poor
Bastian did :-( ) because it gave some insight into what the values of the
maintainers of OpenWRT are.
-Philip
I don't like using "-e" because what happens if the name exists, but it's a
directory or a socket or a block file...
Why not use "-f" instead?
If it's a directory or a socket, then touch certainly won't make things
better, so -e is enough, unless you also want to add a conditional rm
-f, as well as some extra checks to make sure it isn't a symlink, ....
nah, screw that, I don't believe in defensive programming ;)
- Felix
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
