[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: sh portability questions

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: sh portability questions
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:51:23 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)

>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

 > "local" isn't in POSIX so I'd avoid it in portable scripts.

Doh.  Thanks.

 > For what it's worth, I briefly searched for this issue and found these
 > bug reports dated this year where someone used "local" in a shell
 > script and someone else complained and fixed it.


Thanks, I should have done this myself...

 > Is "local" that crucial?  Admittedly it's very annoying to lack local
 > variables, but you can always solve it by renaming.  (Unless you want
 > to use recursion.  Is that a goal here?)

No, recursion is not an issue, but it was to avoid having to stick to
ugly naming convention to avoid clashes.

 > Assuming you don't need recursion, here's a thought.

Nice trick!  Thanks for the suggestion.  Unfortunately, although I
don't have recursion, I do call my function multiple times.  Of course
I could start using 'unset', which is unportable but easy to work
around, but that starts to become quite a mess.

I can actually define "local" to do nothing and use an external
maintainer-check to grep'n check them.

Also, maybe I am paranoid, but would you trust shells to support
conditional function definitions?  Or function definitions in eval?

if (local foo) >/dev/null 2>&1; then :; else
  local () { true;  }

or even

(local foo) >/dev/null 2>&1 || local () { true; }

Bah.  First trust, then react.  Thanks!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]