Martin Buchholz wrote: > Purists will note we use > > test -n "$foo" > > instead of > > test "x$foo" != "x" > > > Hmmm. The latter certainly does look more portable...but it's so ugly... I don't find it /that/ ugly. I actually find it almost more readable than the former ;-) -- / / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / EPITA / LRDE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ / /_/ / /__ / 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel. +33 (1) 44 08 01 77 94276 Kremlin-Bicêtre cedex Fax. +33 (1) 44 08 01 99
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Paul Eggert
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Portable programming (was: config.cache consider... Russ Allbery
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Didier Verna
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Felix Lee
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Harlan Stenn
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Felix Lee
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Alexandre Oliva
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Tom Tromey
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz