Eric Lesh <eclesh@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> [ I'm finally back to this. Thanks for your comments. ]
>
> Josef Sipek <jsipek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +# usage: set_guards <patch> <guards...>
>>> +set_guards()
>>> +{
>>> + p="$1"
>>
>> Again, be careful about namespace polution.
>>
>
> Can I use "local", or is it a bashism? If not, use parentheses around
> the function body?
>
>>> + shift
>>> + for x in "$@"; do
>>> + if [ -z $(printf %s "$x" | grep -e "^[+-]") ]; then
>>> + echo "'$x' is not a valid guard name"
>>> + else
>>> + sed -i -e "s,^\($p[[:space:]]*.*\)$,\1 #$x," "$series"
>>
>> Out of curiosity, why printf and not echo?
>>
>
> For guards named '-e' or other funky things echo doesn't like and
> can't process with echo --.
The problem with the above is that it reacts strangely to multiline
options.
Should be much better (and faster on shells without builtin printf) to
use
case "$x" in
[+-]*)
sed -i -e ... ;;
*)
echo "'$x' is not ...
esac
and this runs portably without forking on shells that are 30 years
old. Shell script programmers _really_ should know "case" inside out.
Also, instead of 'for x in "$@"' one can just write "for x'
>> The regexp is in double quotes, so you should escape the $ (EOL),
>> as well as all the \. Yep, this is shell scripting at its worst.
\ does not need to be escaped in double quotes except before \, $ and `.
You can write
sed -i -e "s,^\($p[[:space:]]*.*\)\$,\1 #$x," "$series"
and that's fine.
--
David Kastrup
-
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
