On 2/15/11 1:20 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
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.
Yes, you did.
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
I don't think they'd all be covered in a couple of emails... but it seems to be
an interesting mix of clarity, brevity, and small memory-footprint.
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
