-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:11:34AM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 13 Nov 2015 at 14:43:39 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > (as an aside: it's bad custom inherited from DOS to name shell scripts > > with an .sh ending. No ending is the right thing here). > > So these were all DOS scripts once, were they? > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1248 Apr 21 2014 /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3807 Apr 21 2014 /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh*
[...] Very smart. I didn't say the scripts are inherited from DOS. That bad habit is, definitely. > I name my scripts in ~/bin with an extension corresponding to their > contents: .pl .py .sh etc. Where I'm working on alternative versions, > I might have more than one language. Extensionless filenames are > either links or binaries. What's bad about this? Or is it just > snobbery: Look, we don't need extensions. No. If you call your scripts from other places, and -- say -- change the implementation from shell to ruby: do you have to run around and fix all the call sites? Have fun. The one case where an "extension" (as you call it: DOS, see?) might make sense (I'd say a hint in the filename) is when your script isn't an executable in itself but a collection of functions you *source* from another shell: this so-called "shell library" has to be shell code (i.e. you can't change implementation). And snobbery? Pthttht. - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlZG3AQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb2XQCeMEBnjZw0/6L2zImjZ27pgHlI MfoAn0dyW5n4u5XZdXzlR8XpR6DPaupL =pM11 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
