Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 01:42:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> >> Yeah, I agree, and the dq around $browser_cmd is kind of important, too, >> >> for that to work and be readable. >> > >> > Oops, good catch. Probably the most readable version would be: >> > >> > eval "\"$browser_cmd\"" '"$@"' >> >> Actually I didn't mean that double dq. >> >> In fact, if browser_cmd is meant to be split as a shell snippet, I do not >> think you want the string seen by eval to have dq around the expanded >> version of $browser_cmd. And I tend to prefer feeding a single string to >> eval, so the version in your message I quoted originally looks good to me. >> >> Unless I am missing something here...? > > Oh right. Sorry, I read your comment, thought that's what you meant, and > that I had overlooked something. Forgetting that it was intentional to > leave off the quotes inside. > > So yeah, my original is right. I just got turned around in all of the > discussion. Thinking about it a bit more, I suspect that we should just let the 'eval' grab value out of the $browser_cmd variable, i.e. eval '$browser_cmd "$@"' no? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html