Mike Hommey <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> + ( read empty ;
>>> + [ "$empty" ] && exit 1 ;
>>
>> What is this meant to do? Did you mean [ -n "$empty" ] ?
>
> Replacing with [ -n "$empty" ] would not work properly, except if you
> replace the following ; with &&. Does that really make a readability
> difference ?
>
>>> + ! grep -ve "^#" > /dev/null 2>&1 ) < actual
>>
>> The double negation is harder to read. May I suggest something along these
>> lines (which seems more readable to me):
>> while read line; do
>> case $line in #(
>> '#'*) ;; # Accept comments (
>> *) exit 1;;
>> esac
>> done
>
> I'm not really convinced. What do other people have to say ?
As shell "read" loses information (a backslash sequence is
interpreted, and trailing whitespaces are stripped and not
assigned to "line" above), it is not such a good vehicle if you
want to make a reasonably strict test on top of. Some shells
do not implement "read -r" either, so it is also a portability
hassle.
Perhaps...
# check the first line --- should be empty
first=$(sed -e 1q <actual) &&
test -z "$first" &&
# remove commented lines from the remainder -- should be empty
rest=$(sed -e 1d -e '/^#/d' <actual) &&
test -z "$rest"
-
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
