| 1 |
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:51:47 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >> (I guess it is encountering EOF on the temporary file created by |
| 7 |
> >> the string redirection, but how would one distinguish this from |
| 8 |
> >> other errors?) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > read's return code indicates whether if found a full line (with a |
| 11 |
> > newline). read can't really fail. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Certainly writing or reading the temp file can fail? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> >> Besides, it is hard to understand what this code does, as compared |
| 16 |
> >> to the "set -f" solution. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > Many pieces of good code are harder to understand than cheap, ugly |
| 19 |
> > hacks. That's why those hacks are so common, and people meet them |
| 20 |
> > all the time and never learn good code. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Well, compare: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> set -f |
| 25 |
> echo -e ${DOC_CONTENTS} | ... |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> versus: |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> read -d '' -r -a DOC_CONTENTS <<<"${DOC_CONTENTS}" |
| 30 |
> echo -e "${DOC_CONTENTS[*]}" | ... |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> The second one is (IMHO) harder to understand, less efficient, and |
| 33 |
> relies on undocumented behaviour. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
On WHAT?! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Best regards, |
| 39 |
Michał Górny |
| 40 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives