Re: Ann: yruba --- rule evaluation for the shell

"Stachu 'Dozzie' K." <dozzie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 03.12.2005, Harald <pifpafpuf@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Announcing yruba 2.0
....
>> Comments and suggestions welcome.
>
> I have one or two.
>
> I don't know if you do have a POSIX copy, but I'm pretty sure the
> "function" keyword was in the Single Unix Specification[*] marked as

Just looked it up in
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/idx/shell.html and
indeed there is no 'function' keyword. This will be easy to change,
although I find it much more readable with 'function'.

> Another thing worth to remember is that the "local" keyword is not even
> mentioned in SUS. On the other hand, the only shell available to me not
> supporting "local" is ksh93, so I don't know if it is worth enough to
> concern it.

And this would in fact not be so easy to change. I started to use
'local' wherever possible to avoid surprises. It seems that for now
ksh93 is out:-(


> That would be all for now.
> I think I could use yruba in few places, so we'll see if I would be lazy
> and use makefiles or not too lazy and check yruba out. I like that it's
> just few (hundreds) lines of shell script, because I could easily fix
> something in the case it would need to be fixed :)

Well, it works for me, but shell scripting is always up for
surprises. I hope you send me any fixs necessary.

Thanks,
Harald.

--
---------------------+---------------------------------------------
Harald Kirsch (@home)|
Java Text Crunching: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Rebholz-srv/whatizit/software
.