1 |
Roy Marples wrote: |
2 |
> Hello List |
3 |
> |
4 |
> It's your favourite posix shell lover here, asking for your honest |
5 |
> opinions. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> array="1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8; |
8 |
> \* |
9 |
> 'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4 |
10 |
> -I 'option; $FOO with spaces' |
11 |
> " |
12 |
> |
13 |
> array=("1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;" |
14 |
> "\*" |
15 |
> "'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4" |
16 |
> "-I 'option; $FOO with spaces'" |
17 |
> ) |
18 |
> |
19 |
> array="'1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;' \ |
20 |
> '\*' \ |
21 |
> \"'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4\" \ |
22 |
> \"-I 'option; $FOO with spaces'\" |
23 |
> " |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The first and last are of course posix constructs whilst the middle is |
26 |
> bash. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> The bash one is purely there for reference, and of course you can still |
29 |
> use it if /bin/sh is bash. The last one is what baselayout-2 currently |
30 |
> uses and I'm wondering if we should switch to the first one before we |
31 |
> come out of package.mask. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I'm asking which you think are the most readable of the first and last |
34 |
> ones and if you see any issues with either. |
35 |
|
36 |
The first is much more readable than the last, but only slightly more |
37 |
readable than the middle one. I'm not a sh/bash guru the way many of the |
38 |
developers are, and I can tell you right up front that I'd be more |
39 |
comfortable configuring options if they looked more like the first |
40 |
example, and I'd guess many users would feel the same way. The fewer " ' |
41 |
; \ characters there are to keep track of, the better. |