From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Il6P6-0005as-5g for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:21:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l9PHL401001812; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:21:04 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l9PHIVui030812 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:18:31 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.100] (ip72-220-190-134.sd.sd.cox.net [72.220.190.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF78656D3 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:18:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4720CFE1.1060406@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:18:25 -0700 From: Josh Saddler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071020) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Opinions Wanted - Arrays again :) References: <1193326831.4245.16.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> In-Reply-To: <1193326831.4245.16.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig98410DF50F6C71B5B964E20F" X-Archives-Salt: 6a5c092b-9307-49ad-acc5-6e75068cafc7 X-Archives-Hash: 76ca34f35095484ee01695d63710b396 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig98410DF50F6C71B5B964E20F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Roy Marples wrote: > Hello List >=20 > It's your favourite posix shell lover here, asking for your honest > opinions. >=20 > array=3D"1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8; > \* > 'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4 > -I 'option; $FOO with spaces' > " >=20 > array=3D("1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;" > "\*" > "'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4" > "-I 'option; $FOO with spaces'" > ) >=20 > array=3D"'1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;' \ > '\*' \ > \"'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4\" \ > \"-I 'option; $FOO with spaces'\" > " >=20 > The first and last are of course posix constructs whilst the middle is > bash. >=20 > The bash one is purely there for reference, and of course you can still= > use it if /bin/sh is bash. The last one is what baselayout-2 currently > uses and I'm wondering if we should switch to the first one before we > come out of package.mask. >=20 > I'm asking which you think are the most readable of the first and last > ones and if you see any issues with either. The first is much more readable than the last, but only slightly more readable than the middle one. I'm not a sh/bash guru the way many of the developers are, and I can tell you right up front that I'd be more comfortable configuring options if they looked more like the first example, and I'd guess many users would feel the same way. The fewer " ' ; \ characters there are to keep track of, the better. --------------enig98410DF50F6C71B5B964E20F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHIM/k5aFMlhMsVyURAt7NAKCw9BI9f7TazgNVyKucZ3+74weOmgCggzSm qR36rS8haqk4CUgPxScYlqU= =I/Wd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig98410DF50F6C71B5B964E20F-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list