| 1 |
Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Thu Oct 14 00:32:40 +0200 2010: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 18:13:18 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Wed Oct 13 23:46:43 +0200 2010: |
| 4 |
> > > On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 15:57:17 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > And why putting different tasks into one function? |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > for the same reason we dont have separate test binaries: test_exist, |
| 8 |
> > > test_file, test_dir, etc... |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > it makes more sense in my mind to combine the functionality. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > So the only argument for having more complicated, less intuitive and |
| 13 |
> > less readable function is the old 'test' program? Please, reconsider my |
| 14 |
> > solution with more reason. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> we prioritize differently. i prefer unified code with options. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In which part it's unified? As I said it doesn't conform much to 'test' |
| 19 |
convention. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> you preferred unrolled duplicated code. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What I'm duplicating? Lines "local f", "for f; do" or "}"? And what's |
| 25 |
bad about it while still having less LOC? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> > Moreover we're using 'test' as '[[ … ]]' which changes much in readability. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> what are you talking about ? no one is using `test` in their code and if they |
| 31 |
> are, their code is broken. none of the stuff ive posted is running `test`. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I've messed up with that paragraph. The point was that "path_exists -a" |
| 34 |
is even less readable than "test -e something". As you've said you |
| 35 |
wouldn't use "test -e" syntax instead of "[[ -e ]]", but let's skip that |
| 36 |
part… |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Amadeusz Żołnowski |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5 |
Archives