On 11/04/09 05:02, Matt Wozniski wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>>
>> On 11/04/09 04:16, Matt Wozniski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't you run "test" just once? Maybe something more or less like
>>>>
>>>> if test -n "$x_includes" -a "$x_includes" != "NONE"
>>>>
>>>> Just my sense of aesthetics, I'm not on a Mac.
>>>
>>> Usually, yes - but lore tells of shells where "test" isn't POSIX
>>> compatible, where "-a" and "-o" don't behave predictably but "&&" and
>>> "||" do...
>>
>> Hm. What about the shells available on the Mac, and in particular on Mac
>> OS X ?
>
> Changing the configure script would change things wherever ./configure
> is used. And, besides, "it looks prettier" is hardly a reason to
> accept behavior that might be broken somewhere. If we can agree that
> "test ... -a ..." and "test ...&& test ..." are functionally
> equivalent, but that the latter might work somewhere the former
> doesn't, it's pretty clear that we should use the latter.
>
> ~Matt
OK. The former may run marginally faster due to the fact that the whole
expression is computed in the same place (even on shells where test
isn't a builtin), but that's hardly a reason to risk an easily avoidable
malfunction.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
The Preacher, the Politician, the Teacher,
Were each of them once a kiddie.
A child, indeed, is a wonderful creature.
Do I want one? God Forbiddie!
-- Ogden Nash
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
