On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:35:30AM +0000, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:53:36AM +0000, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >>Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >>>+say_color () {
> >>>+ [ "$nocolor" = 0 ] && [ "$1" != '-1' ] && tput setaf "$1"
> >>>+ shift
> >>>+ echo "* $*"
> >>>+ tput op
> >>>+}
> >>What if tput is not available, like on Windows? How about this (at the
> >>end of the file, so it can obey --no-color):
> > I answered to it already in my first mail: if tput isn't available,
> >the command fails, and $? is non 0. and nocolor is set. Or color isn't
> >set to 't' for your proposal.
>
> I was too terse, sorry. I wanted to point out that if tput is not
> available, the second invocation will leave "tput: command not found"
> behind on stderr. Therefore, I proposed to make the definition of
> say_color() different depending on whether $color is set or not. Then you
> don't need to test for $color twice inside the function.
Right we can do that. I'll try to rework the patch. and no it
shouldn't leave tput: command not found as I 2>/dev/null and I think the
shell doesn't print that in that case. At least my zsh doesn't.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpnXnCaNwmPl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
