| 1 |
On Sun, 2021-08-01 at 16:40 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > + 3.0) [[ ${EAPI} == 7 ]] \ |
| 5 |
> > > + || die "GTK 2 no longer supported |
| 6 |
> > > in EAPI ${EAPI}" ;; |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > Let's make it: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > [[ ${EAPI} != 7 ]] && die ... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > to keep the logic more straightforward (and consistent with 'if ...; |
| 13 |
> > then'). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Generally, I like the "<successful statement> || die" style more, |
| 16 |
> because it is more common. It is also more consistent about the return |
| 17 |
> status of the whole expression. With the && operator above, it would |
| 18 |
> return shell false in case of success. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
A user requested the other style in one of my earlier patches, |
| 21 |
and I kinda agree that this reverse logic can easily get confusing. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Of course, there's no functional difference here, but if you have it |
| 24 |
> at |
| 25 |
> the end of a function or before an explicit return statement it may |
| 26 |
> play |
| 27 |
> a role. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
...only if it's nonfatal-friendly. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives