* uncommon shell code
@ 2005-09-22 14:32 Robert Watson
2005-09-22 22:03 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Watson @ 2005-09-22 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Hi,
I found the following shell code in git-tag.sh (and others):
while case "$#" in 0) break ;; esac
do
...
done
Why not use the straight forward code:
while test "$#" -ne 0
do
...
done
Are there any functional difference between them?
Robertoo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: uncommon shell code
2005-09-22 14:32 uncommon shell code Robert Watson
@ 2005-09-22 22:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-09-23 8:32 ` Robert Watson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2005-09-22 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Watson; +Cc: git
Robert Watson <robert.oo.watson@gmail.com> writes:
> I found the following shell code in git-tag.sh (and others):
My fault; see point 2. in this article:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git&m=112386506308820&w=2
Please either get used to it or wait until I decide to modernize
the scripts wholesale, whichever comes first.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: uncommon shell code
2005-09-22 22:03 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2005-09-23 8:32 ` Robert Watson
2005-09-23 9:00 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Watson @ 2005-09-23 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
On 9/22/05, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Robert Watson <robert.oo.watson@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I found the following shell code in git-tag.sh (and others):
>
> My fault; see point 2. in this article:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git&m=112386506308820&w=2
>
> Please either get used to it or wait until I decide to modernize
> the scripts wholesale, whichever comes first.
>
I see. I thought I was old fashioned by sticking to test instead of
[] (that is your point 1), but obviously I am not old enough ;)
Well, it's fine now that I know what it is. But it hurts readability,
and probably it's a good idea to simplify it. Any reasonable shell
should built-in test(1)?
Robertoo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: uncommon shell code
2005-09-23 8:32 ` Robert Watson
@ 2005-09-23 9:00 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2005-09-23 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Watson; +Cc: git
Robert Watson <robert.oo.watson@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, it's fine now that I know what it is. But it hurts
> readability, and probably it's a good idea to simplify it.
I try to stay away from style discussion, but readability is
always relative and personal. Things like 'while case $# in
..." is an idiom for some but not for others -- and I am
included in the former group of people (unfortunately). In any
case, 'while test $# != 0' is not too much of a simplification
anyway.
> Any reasonable shell should built-in test(1)?
Correct. The idiom comes from performance issues -- lack of
built in test long ago -- and that issue is not relevant
anymore. But the pattern being an idiom for some still is.
Having said that, I do not feel too strong about enforcing _my_
style. I _do_ feel somewhat strong about consistency, so if
somebody wants to update them, without dropping the ball in the
middle, it is very likely that I can be persuaded to take a
series of patches to modernize them.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-09-23 9:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-09-22 14:32 uncommon shell code Robert Watson
2005-09-22 22:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-09-23 8:32 ` Robert Watson
2005-09-23 9:00 ` Junio C Hamano
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).