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

[Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott]

On 2013-09-10 17:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 September 2013 17:32:21 Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote:
>> 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 – 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 {...}.

Ah.  Personally, I found the outside curly braces more confusing. :)

> 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() (
> 	....
> )

Yes, that's reasonable.  Will do.

-- 
Patrick "P. J." McDermott
  http://www.pehjota.net/
Lead Developer, ProteanOS
  http://www.proteanos.com/