On Sunday, Aug 6th 2006 at 13:27 -0400, quoth Tom Diehl: =>On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Steven W. Orr wrote: => =>> On Sunday, Aug 6th 2006 at 22:05 +1000, quoth Cameron Simpson: =>> =>> =>On 06Aug2006 12:44, Chris Bradford <chrisbradford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> =>> wrote: =>> =>| I changed =>> =>| =>> =>| ctime=/bin/date =>> =>| compname=hostname =>> =>| =>> =>| to: =>> =>| =>> =>| ctime="$(date)" =>> =>| compname="$(hostname)" =>> => =>> =>BTW, you don't need the quotes. The assignment is parsed before the =>> =>values arrive. Eg, this works: =>> => =>> => x='a b c' =>> => y=$x =>> => =>> =>Also, just for other scripts, this: =>> => =>> => foo=`command` =>> => =>> =>is more portable than =>> => =>> => foo=$(command) =>> =>> Never use backquotes when the $( cmd ) is available. The backquotes are =>> deprecated in bash and ksh and are only available in antique Bourne =>> shells. In addition there are subtle differences in quoting between the =>> two. => =>Any idea why the authors feel the need to break 20+ years of history? I fail =>to =>see why foo=`command` is better or worse than foo=$(command). I only have 17+ =>years worth of sh, ksh, and bash scripts that use the foo=`command` construct. => =>Just to be clear I am not blaming anyone here for the change. I realize that =>this type of thing comes from upstream. I am just trying to understand why =>this =>type of thing is done. How long has sh been around? At *least* since '88. Sometimes things like foo=$(command) foo=`command` foo="`command`" get really hard to debug. Throw an eval into the mix, and you're in pretty deep. The ksh syntax is better. :-) -- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net
