aliases are the way not to write duplicate code On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 18:06 L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote:
> > > On 2022/02/03 07:02, Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 04:20 Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au > > <mailto:k...@munnari.oz.au>> wrote: > > > > Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:18:08 -0800 > > From: L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org <mailto:b...@tlinx.org>> > > Message-ID: <61fb2d50.7010...@tlinx.org > > <mailto:61fb2d50.7010...@tlinx.org>> > > > > | My posix non-conformance issue has to do with bash not > > starting with > > | aliases enabled by default in all default invocations. > > > > If you're using aliases in scripts, then just stop doing that. > > > ---- > Uh, No. > > > > u're tralla > > > > There's no need for it, it just makes your script harder to > > follow. > > > --- > I write scripts for myself. aliases make scriptes easier to create > modify and maintain. You can type 'declare -i x=1', I prefer 'int x=1' > I find 'declare -xxyz' harder to write, read and parse than 'my', > 'array' 'map' > > We aren't talking 100 aliases, but these: > alias my='declare ' int='my -i ' array='my -a ' map='my -A ' > > are used in nearly all my scripts. > > I use functions frequently I start off many of my scripts: > nalias include >& /dev/null > if [[ $(type -t include) != function ]]; then source ~/bin/include; fi > include stdalias > > Even though I have an stdalias.shh file, I rarely use the aliases in it > -- except > for the ones listed above. It depends on the script, but having aliases > matching types can help in more complex scripts. I can define something > with an alias, then check if a parameter matches its 'type'. my > Types.shh include file even > includes a builtin-test suite: > > Types.shh > Types v0.2 include file. Usage (in a script): > > include Types > > Cmdline options: > -h for this help > -t for self-test > > > Types.shh -t > test01: Define & Identify Basic Types: PASS > test02: define w/aliases+combos+identify: ... > 0. type(myarray)=array : PASS > 1. type(mymap)=map : PASS > 2. type(myint)=int : PASS > 3. type(int_array)=array Int : PASS > 4. type(int_map)=map Int : PASS > 5. type(exp_int_array)=array Int Export : PASS > 6. type(exp_int_map)=map Int Export : PASS > 7. type(low_array)=array Lower : PASS > 8. type(up_array)=array Upper : PASS > 9. type(exp_int_const)=int Const Export : PASS > > --- > The above routines break down type-defining aliases and > I can check that parameters passed to a subroutine are of the right type. > like: > if I had passed something declared with > alias 'int_map' to a function, I can test if it > is a 'map' (hash) with keys that point to integers. > > For dual types (like declare -al), I can use > array Lower foo=(...) > > > > Simply expand any aliases you"d use interactively, > > and you will no longer care about this. > > > --- > Except every time I type or read them, which is sorta the point. > > There is no way you can tell me that: > declare var='v' > declare -i ivar=1 > > are more clear than: > > my var='v' > int ivar=1 > >
