The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general as well.
FOREWORD
I have seen following construct to be used in shell-context
(makefiles, sh-scripts, Perl):
`cmd` [1]
However, the POSIX standard and SUSv[23] decl
On Feb 09, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have reported bugs against backtick and suggested to change to use
> the more readable alternative. The result was surprising. To quote
> one message (bug closed reasoning):
>
> "If your development environment cannot display ` differently
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have reported bugs against backtick and suggested to change to use the
> more readable alternative. The result was surprising. To quote one
> message (bug closed reasoning):
> "If your development environment cannot display ` differently than ' ,
>
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 07:26:21PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I'm askinf if it is ok to to reopen such bugs based of better QA
> > aspects. Possibly by providing patches if the maintainer is busy
> > elsewhere to handle such a "minor issue" from his perspective.
> No, it's not. Even if a patch
Hello,
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007, Jari Aalto wrote:
> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
> that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.general as well.
> BUG REPORTS -- AND REPONSES
>
> I have reported bugs against backtick and suggested to change to use
> the more readable
Jari Aalto wrote:
> "If your development environment cannot display ` differently than ' ,
> you need to get a new one."
Note that even though I wrote the above, I'm not exactly opposed to $().
I've been using $() in most shell code I write for years. But this does
not mean that I feel i
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Jari Aalto wrote:
> FOREWORD
>
> I have seen following construct to be used in shell-context
> (makefiles, sh-scripts, Perl):
>
> `cmd` [1]
>
> However, the POSIX standard and SUSv[23] declares alternative way of
> accomplishing the same with in *sh co
7 matches
Mail list logo
