On Wednesday 28 September 2005 10:04 am, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > if (local foo) >/dev/null 2>&1; then :; else
> > local () { true; }
> > fi
>
> Note that local is only valid in function context, so this will always
> produce a failure.
For pedant po
* Akim Demaille wrote on Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 01:36:11PM CEST:
>
> Thanks, I didn't know. How about this then?
> (
> foo=bar
> test_local () {
> local foo=foo
> }
> test_local
> test $foo = bar
> ) || local () {
> case $1 in
> *=*) eval "$1";;
> esac
>
>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> if (local foo) >/dev/null 2>&1; then :; else
>> local () { true; }
>> fi
> Note that local is only valid in function context, so this will always
> produce a failure.
Thanks, I didn'
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if (local foo) >/dev/null 2>&1; then :; else
> local () { true; }
> fi
Note that local is only valid in function context, so this will always
produce a failure.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Max
* Akim Demaille wrote on Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:51:23AM CEST:
>
> I can actually define "local" to do nothing and use an external
> maintainer-check to grep'n check them.
>
> Also, maybe I am paranoid, but would you trust shells to support
> conditional function definitions? Or function definiti
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, maybe I am paranoid, but would you trust shells to support
> conditional function definitions? Or function definitions in eval?
No, you're not paranoid. But I think I would trust it, yes.
Admittedly it might take some iterations to get the test
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "local" isn't in POSIX so I'd avoid it in portable scripts.
Doh. Thanks.
> For what it's worth, I briefly searched for this issue and found these
> bug reports dated this year where someone used "local" in a shell
> script and someone
Just a couple of random thoughts:
* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 12:36:06AM CEST:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Assuming you don't need recursion, here's a thought.
I believe this is a decent assumption for the funct
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming you don't need recursion, here's a thought. Use "local", but
> stick to the convention that all variable names are unique. On
> systems that don't support "local", define a function named "local"
> that warns if any of its arguments is a variabl
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Assuming you don't need recursion, here's a thought. Use "local", but
>> stick to the convention that all variable names are unique. On
>> systems that don't support "local", define a function named "local"
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now that there are no doubts about the portability of shell functions
> (in the sense that there's always a shell on the machine that supports
> function ---and maybe the documentation should reflect this),
Yes, it should.
> I'm curious about the suppo
Now that there are no doubts about the portability of shell functions
(in the sense that there's always a shell on the machine that supports
function ---and maybe the documentation should reflect this), I'm
curious about the support of "return" and "local". Is there anything
known about them? IS
12 matches
Mail list logo
