suggestion (was Re: 1.7.7: Localization does not follow the language of the OS)

Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] BBuchbinder@niaid.nih.gov
Thu Jan 13 13:08:00 GMT 2011


Matthias Andree sent the following at Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:55 AM
>
>Am 12.01.2011 11:55, schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
>>> export LANG="$(locale -uU)"    # (or -sU for system default locale)
>>
>> It's just another way to express the same.  Backticks are not obsolete.
>> The backtick style is exactly as much POSIX as the $() style.  See
>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.ht
>> ml#tag_18
>>
>> Other than that, this isn't a mailing list about programming style.
>
>Try mixing backticks with quoting and blanks, or try nesting them,
>and then you'll know it's not about style but pretty much about
>functionality, hence, obsolete (whether it's labeled as such in the
>standard or not - there is a better alternative).
>
>If it were equivalent, I hadn't posted this. It isn't.

Actually, I would argue that sometimes they are equivalent and sometimes
they are not.  Think of it like physics.  Newtonian mechanics and
relativity are different.  Relativity always gives the correct answer and
Newtonian mechanics doesn't always do so, but we still use the older form
when it does.

So if one wants to use something that always works, use $().  But when
`command` works, there is no reason not to use it if one wants to.
Personally, I still use backticks fairly often.
  (1) On my keyboard, they are significantly easier to type than $().
  (2) It is a habit; $() did not exist when I started to learn scripting.

Best wishes,

- Barry
  Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.



More information about the Cygwin-talk mailing list