On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > >> > 65 base_src_util $@ > >> This is not problem > > > Only because you can be sure there will be exactly one word in the > > result, which will not be split. In general, $@ should be quoted, and it > > would be a good idea to either do it here too even though it's not > > strictly necessary, or make the intent clearer and just write > > > base_src_util $1 > > I think this would not be correct. Note the while loop over parameters > in base_src_util.
You're right. I'm so used to src_unpack normally not having any arguments that I didn't stop to think base_src_unpack could easily be called explicitly, with as many parameters as you'd like. Checking shows this is not done in the tree (never more than one parameter, and usually zero), but that's no reason to drop it. :) > So it should be "$@" (with quotes). That'd be better, but my point still stands: the arguments to base_src_unpack won't ever contain anything that can be expanded, so quoting isn't strictly necessary, just a good idea. Not that I'm against the quoting, of course.
