On 2011-02-15 10:11 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: > 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 added the ";)" for a reason.
> 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. And what are those values? - Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
