Re: [PATCH v2][BZ #832][BZ #3266] Make ldd try_trace more robust and portable

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Tuesday 10 September 2013 17:32:21 Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote:
> On 2013-09-10 17:02, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i dislike the missing `local` decls for output and rc.  but those aren't
> > exactly specified in POSIX (even if every reasonable shell supports it). 
> > maybe do a double sub-shell instead ?
> > 
> > try_trace() {
> > 	(
> > 	output=$(.....)
> > 	rc=$?
> > 	printf ....
> > 	exit $rc
> > 	)
> > }
> 
> I discussed this in the original thread [1].  There are shells that
> don't support local, so I'd rather avoid using it.  I proposed using a
> subshell as you've suggested (though the outside curly braces aren't
> necessary on any shell, as far as I know â either way the function is
> defined as a compound list of commands).  At the time, though, no one
> indicated any preferences.  So I think I'll adjust this to use a
> subshell.

i use this style as it's what people are used to -- they have in their mind 
that a func must be bracketed by {...}.

if you do choose to omit those, please make sure to add an explicit comment so 
future peeps don't get confused.
# The use of (...) vs {...} for the body of the func is by design -- we
# want a subshell to avoid the vars leaking into the caller.
try_trace() (
	....
)
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.