| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >> > 65 base_src_util $@ |
| 5 |
> >> This is not problem |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Only because you can be sure there will be exactly one word in the |
| 8 |
> > result, which will not be split. In general, $@ should be quoted, and it |
| 9 |
> > would be a good idea to either do it here too even though it's not |
| 10 |
> > strictly necessary, or make the intent clearer and just write |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > base_src_util $1 |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I think this would not be correct. Note the while loop over parameters |
| 15 |
> in base_src_util. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You're right. I'm so used to src_unpack normally not having any arguments |
| 18 |
that I didn't stop to think base_src_unpack could easily be called |
| 19 |
explicitly, with as many parameters as you'd like. Checking shows this |
| 20 |
is not done in the tree (never more than one parameter, and usually |
| 21 |
zero), but that's no reason to drop it. :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> So it should be "$@" (with quotes). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That'd be better, but my point still stands: the arguments to |
| 26 |
base_src_unpack won't ever contain anything that can be expanded, so quoting |
| 27 |
isn't strictly necessary, just a good idea. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Not that I'm against the quoting, of course. |
Archives