| 1 |
Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 2 |
> Steve, your example only tests how much time bash takes to parse string. |
| 3 |
> It's obvious that in quoted strings some expansions could be avoided and |
| 4 |
> thus bash works faster. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yeah that's all I wanted to get across. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> But although ebuilds use bash syntax they are |
| 9 |
> interpreted not only by bash - the time to parse stings is negligible to |
| 10 |
> other activities. I have not calculated but made a rough estimation |
| 11 |
> taking into account the number of ebuilds in the tree. So I think we |
| 12 |
> have of order of 10^6 string. This means that during merge of all |
| 13 |
> packages we'll win 10 seconds. I don't think it's worth to consider this |
| 14 |
> gain. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
Agreed; in the context of a build it's not at all significant. It might be |
| 17 |
in the context of metadata generation. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> So in portage tree this is the matter of style. That's said, since |
| 20 |
> personally I don't have any preference on this style and until there |
| 21 |
> will be arguments not to use this style I'll start to use full quotation |
| 22 |
> of the strings. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
Thanks for taking it on board :-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> And yes, in pure bash programs possibly this'll make sense. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
Yeah; that's effectively what ebuild.sh, combined with all the files it |
| 29 |
sources, is. (There's quite a bit of code there.) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Steve. |
Archives