Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-01 15:40:58 +1000]: > I might have gotten somewhere initially if i hadn't have > used those square [] brackets.
A couple of gratuitous comments concerning the scripting plus the
helpful comments which were posted. I can't help but to say
something. I know, I know, I need therapy.
1. Using `` is the same as $() except that the $() are prefered since
you can nest them without needing to do crazy quoting. The quoting
in general inside of $() is slightly better. All modern shells
support $(). The old Bourne shell does not.
2. The 'if' executes a command. The '[' is a command. Therefore if
you can use the return code of a command directly it is ever so
slightly more efficient since you have one less command.
if grep -q foo /path/to/file; then
is better than
if [ -n "$(grep foo /path/to/file)" ]; then
3. You can negate the return code easily using '!'.
if ! grep -q foo /path/to/file; then
is better than
if [ -z "$(grep foo /path/to/file)" ]; then
4. When using test you should always quote your test case. This
following case is bad since if the grep does not produce something
then you get a syntax error from test. But if it does produce
something then you don't. Coding with data dependent failures is
always to be avoided.
if [ -n $(grep foo /path/to/file) ]; then # poor syntax, unreliable
5. Different shells treat pipelines differently. IIRC it used to be
with the old Bourne shell the return code is the return code of the
last command to exit and not the last command in the pipeline.
Which can make for subtle errors that are hard to debug. I don't
know if this is a concern with modern shells but I have been
avoiding those cases for ten years.
Bob
msg00282/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
