Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This approach seems like a bit of plastering over the real problem. It's
> fine to use the output of "wc -l" or "wc -c" in the context of the
> shell's whitespace handling. That's why in various places we do:
Sorry, but I am confused.
> test $(wc -l <$file>) = 1
>
> Or similar, but *don't* put that $() in double-quotes. I.e. we're
> relying on the shell's whitespace semantics.
>
> So isn't it better to just pass this through the shell's own handling
> before emitting the data, something like this POC:
>
> $ stripspace() { var=$1; echo $@; }; x=$(stripspace " hi" " there "); echo "\"$x\""
> "hi there"
All of the above are not wrong per-se, but if I read the scaffolding
code correctly, the way the output from "wc -c" is used is not via a
variable, but
test_size_ () {
say >&3 "running: $2"
if test_eval_ "$2" 3>"$base".result; then
test_ok_ "$1"
else
test_failure_ "$@"
fi
}
test_size () {
test_wrapper_ test_size_ "$@"
}
where "$2" gets the script given to test_size, e.g.
test_size "size $title" '
wc -c <tmp.pack
'
the "wc -c" command. And we just let the command emit its output to
"$base.result" (test_eval_ does the stdout-to-#3 redirection, and we
redirect #3 back to the file here). So I am not quite sure where in
the current system your suggestion to apply the "substitition will
lose $IFS around values and gets word splitted if you omit dq around
it" would fit to address the issue at hand.
> Of course fixing it up after that in Perl will work just as well, so I
> guess this is just an asthetic preference for having the shell handle
> the shell's output issues with what's guaranteed to be shell-portable
> solutions... :)
Meaning we could rewrite aggregation in shell, then we can say we
are not making Perl clean up after mess sh creates? I dunno...
Thanks.
