| 1 |
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 06:57 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Pattern matching can be done just as well with case. Infact, tend to |
| 4 |
> > > use [[ == ]] a lot when pattern matching when a case statement would be |
| 5 |
> > > more efficient and use less code. Of course when you're just interested |
| 6 |
> > > in matching one one thing in a code block then it uses more code, but |
| 7 |
> > > that is probably outside the norm. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > case statements can be used in place of *some* statements, but not nearly |
| 10 |
> > all and certainly does not provide the extended logic combining |
| 11 |
> > capabilities. need to do boolean logic ? say hello to convoluted nested |
| 12 |
> > case statements! |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> You can also do some pattern matching like so |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> foo="foo foobar" |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> [ "${foo%foobar}" = "${foo}" ] || echo "ends with foobar" |
| 19 |
> [ "${foo#foobar}" = "${foo}" ] || echo "starts with foo" |
| 20 |
> [ "${foo#* }" = "${foo}" ] || echo "has a space" |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> So there's no need for convoluted nested case statements. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
"no need" implies that everything can be done, but you started off |
| 25 |
with "some" ... you're still going from one clean logic statement to multiple |
| 26 |
ones where the nested logic gets to be a pita to track. again, this is a |
| 27 |
sad/unacceptable solution. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives