Allan McRae wrote: > I have looked at the two patches and the good news is that I can spot > nothing wrong! I just have a few comments about style that I would like > to discuss. > > [...] > > My suggestion is that any thing with text (i.e. not a pure variable) is > quoted. I know this is excessive in some cases (e.g. the last case) but > the only exception I would be happy with is tests that are pure paths > with only added "/" (e.g. $startdir/$file). Even then, maybe quotes > would be nicer... I am happy to be debated on this. >
To quote myself [1]: > In my opinion, it is often not obvious whether they are required or not > which is why I tended to use more quotes than actually were needed. I am > fairly familiar with quoting by now and can use both "quoting styles", > but I think it would probably be a good idea to decide for one. Using > just as much quotes as required would be a little bit shorter, but using > quotes `where possible` may be a little bit more foolproof. Meaning that I am fine with quoting strings generally. [1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-November/010115.html > I wonder if the tests of return values should explicitly test for "== 0" > or "!= 0". e.g. these test have become less clear to me when I read the > code. > > - if [ $ret -gt 0 ]; then > + if (( ret )); then > > - elif [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then > + elif (( ret )); then > Yep, sounds reasonable, especially since we already explicitly test all (or at least many) other non-boolean variables.
