On Thursday 21 November 2002 3:57 pm, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> I think that the only way to group { command2 && exit 3 } is to
> Angus> write a function doing this. Writing either of command1 || (
> Angus> command2 && exit 3
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> I think that the only way to group { command2 && exit 3 } is to
Angus> write a function doing this. Writing either of command1 || (
Angus> command2 && exit 3 ) command1 || ` command2 && exit 3 ` groups
Angus> things as we desire, bu
On Thursday 21 November 2002 3:14 pm, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> Funny, but doesn't work. I needed to do this:
>
> Strange...
>
> JMarc
command1 || command2 && exit 3
I think that the shell reats this as
{ command1 |
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Funny, but doesn't work. I needed to do this:
Strange...
JMarc
On Thursday 21 November 2002 2:28 pm, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> Why do you find this: if (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert
> Angus> ${FDFILE}); then : ; else ... fi
>
> Angus> superior to this: (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Why do you find this: if (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert
Angus> ${FDFILE}); then : ; else ... fi
Angus> superior to this: (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert
Angus> ${FDFILE}) if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then ... fi
Angus> It seems t
On Thursday 21 November 2002 11:59 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On Thursday 21 November 2002 11:27 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> Angus> Which is "better"? (cd ${DIRNAME}; ${
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 21 November 2002 11:27 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Angus> Which is "better"? (cd ${DIRNAME}; ${FDESIGN} -convert
>> Angus> ${FDFILE}) or (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -con
On Thursday 21 November 2002 11:27 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Angus> Which is "better"? (cd ${DIRNAME}; ${FDESIGN} -convert
> Angus> ${FDFILE}) or (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
>
> Angus>if [ $? -ne 0 ]
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Which is "better"? (cd ${DIRNAME}; ${FDESIGN} -convert
Angus> ${FDFILE}) or (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
Angus> if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then echo "\"${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE}\"
Angus> failed. Please investigate."
On Thursday 21 November 2002 10:53 am, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:57:00AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Which is "better"?
> > (cd ${DIRNAME}; ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
> > or
> > (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
> >
> > if [ $? -ne 0 ]; the
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:57:00AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Which is "better"?
> (cd ${DIRNAME}; ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
> or
> (cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
>
> if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> echo "\"${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE}\" failed. P
Which is "better"?
(cd ${DIRNAME}; ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
or
(cd ${DIRNAME} && ${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE})
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
echo "\"${FDESIGN} -convert ${FDFILE}\" failed. Please investigate."
exit 1
fi
I'm not used t
> During te change to string const I did not ave to change any code.
So it does not cost anything except the 'clutter' of additional 'const's.
I really wish 'const' was the default and there was a 'mutable' modifier
to express non-constness. But that's probably 20 years late now.
> I followed t
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I don't really know. There are only a few places where this would be
| a (disputable) advantage for consistency reasons.
:-) true I guess but it is part of the "programming-by-contract"
paradigm and also a way to ensure that tempraries are not modi
> Why have all functions returning a string changed from
> string func();
> to
> string const func();
I don't really know. There are only a few places where this would be
a (disputable) advantage for consistency reasons.
In general _I_ prefer returning a "nonconst" string that can be
Why have all functions returning a string changed from
string func();
to
string const func();
?
Equally, why hasn't this been done to functions returning an int, or a bool
etc?
Angus
17 matches
Mail list logo
