Re: [PATCH libgpiod v2 2/4] tools: tests: use "$@" instead of $*

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 08:22:02AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 05:33:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:44:40PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 04:27:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:18:47PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 04:08:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 07:39:10AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 07:17:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 08:44:20PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:02:34PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > >
> > >
> > > Fair point, but $@ doesn't give you that either:
> > >
> > > boo() {
> > > 	echo "star '$*'"
> > > 	echo "hash '$@'"
> > > }
> > >
> > > boo foo bar "baz bar2"
> > >
> > > gives:
> > >
> > > star 'foo bar baz bar2'
> > > hash 'foo bar baz bar2'
> >
> > Oh, this is unfortunate. It seems entire model with quotation depends on the
> > commands, printf makes it different, print -r -- makes it better, though, if
> > one uses non-space IFS for it.
> >
> > > Is there any form that gives you the format you want?
> >
> > Yes, but it requires an iteration over arguments, roughly something like below
> > (which is not yet what I want, but closer):
> >
> > 	for a in "$@"; do
> > 		echo -n '"$a" ' # echo -n seems not portable IIRC
> > 	done
> > 	echo
> >
> 
> Ok, we're heading into the weeds here.
> The issue isn't that shellcheck is wrong, it is that the error message
> is not formatted the way you would like, and fixing that requires
> writing a function to perform that formatting as bash can't do it out of
> the box.  That isn't a huge issue, as we currently don't have any
> parameters containing whitespace, but it is something that might want to
> be addressed at some point.

Yeah, I have no objection now for using $* in the strings for reporting.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko