[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: sh portability questions

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: sh portability questions
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:30:02 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

* Akim Demaille wrote on Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:51:23AM CEST:
> 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;  }
> fi
> or even
> (local foo) >/dev/null 2>&1 || local () { true; }

You'd have to forbid
  local foo=bar
then.  (I guess you didn't want to use it anyway.)

Hmm, if it weren't for quoting issues, you could use
local ()
  for l
    case $l in *=*) eval "$l";; esac

but quoting kills that, unfortunately, and func_quote_for_eval
might be way overkill here.


reply via email to

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