| 1 |
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:31:24 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>>>>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >>> What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at |
| 8 |
> >>> 'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> >> It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, |
| 11 |
> >> so we can bail out early. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > How can you tell that this behaviour won't be changed in a future |
| 14 |
> > bash version? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Who's to say that in the future my computer won't be made out of |
| 18 |
> delicious ice cream, eliminating the need for EAPIs entirely? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Chances are, this would break thousands of scripts, so we hope they |
| 21 |
> wouldn't do it. If it does happen, we either deal with it then, or |
| 22 |
> don't upgrade to that version of bash -- the same as we would do with |
| 23 |
> any other massive breaking change. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Thousands of scripts? So... you're saying that people actually use |
| 26 |
thousands of scripts which have invalid syntax... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well, one thing I can think of now is makeself and similar. Those are |
| 29 |
indeed a quite good argument. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
But the main point here is that at some point someone may want to use |
| 32 |
a non-bash syntax for ebuilds. Or some kind of optional bash extension. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives