3 ms·

Not to be that guy but this is mostly garbage. I suggest simply paying attention and testing. Switches can be a useful part of the tool but they can break thi

Not to be that guy but this is mostly garbage. I suggest simply paying attention and testing. Switches can be a useful part of the tool but they can break things. It doesn't make things better rather it alters behaviors of the shell in sometimes unintended ways. Try some loops with some -eo. If you have a pipe that fails your script you're just ripping the heart and potential out of your script. I think you might just be looking for one-liners. It can be good to catch your failures and try other things vs "woop, damn, nope." Maybe you need things to fail first. "Quote liberally" - also ripe. Mind your aPostrophes and Quotes because they do things. I like writing for me and what I need done, not what or how others might have me write or how others might think it should be done. The shell is a base orchestration and interface tool for your os. If you think it's just that bad then just stick to your language of choice but please refrain from suggesting lazy habits make a better shell, they don't. Fly your own kite. It's much more fun.

seorphates 7y ago
Ok, "garbage" may have been harsh but how about a fun example? Try this with and without -e #!/usr/bin/env bash bell=`tput bel` tock='Blastoff!' do_ring() { if [ "$1" ]; then # true echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 echo $tock else echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 fi } i=3 while [ "$i" -ge "0" ]; do if [ $i = 0 ]; then sleep 0.5 echo ok else echo $i $bell sleep 0.5 fi i=`expr $i - 1` done do_ring $1 # do something different if arg sleep 1 echo neat. Semantic qualities aside there is something here that breaks with -e and if you're used to using -e by default you might be baffled and think shell sucks, for example.
- clarry 7y ago
  That's why nobody uses expr for arithmetic. But yes, it is annoying that -e breaks some habits that work fine without it.
  - seorphates 7y ago
    I can appreciate the quip, especially given my curmundgeonly entry. But the point remains. The shell needs to be able to call any command on the system reliably. Even aged old counting methods. At no point in that loop would the expr subprocess return other than zero. Try to break out of that loop with that bash switch. One should not rely on these magics, the ones that alter runtime behaviors, without truly understanding what you're after and what you're writing. Or mostly understand. They're fine and good if you have narrow routines with a very strict focus - "I'm in, I'm out, bang." The best switches available to the shell without a bunch of feature and package and library this or that bloat are exactly -x -n That's all that you need to ensure that your scripting is what you need it to be. Introduce the magic after you've written the thing. When it's ready and it passes your tests then test it again. Every single utility and package on that system is at your fingertips. Demand accuracy. I do.

seorphates 7y ago

Ok, "garbage" may have been harsh but how about a fun example? Try this with and without -e #!/usr/bin/env bash bell=`tput bel` tock='Blastoff!' do_ring() { if [ "$1" ]; then # true echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 echo $tock else echo -n $bell; sleep 0.1 fi } i=3 while [ "$i" -ge "0" ]; do if [ $i = 0 ]; then sleep 0.5 echo ok else echo $i $bell sleep 0.5 fi i=`expr $i - 1` done do_ring $1 # do something different if arg sleep 1 echo neat. Semantic qualities aside there is something here that breaks with -e and if you're used to using -e by default you might be baffled and think shell sucks, for example.

clarry 7y ago
That's why nobody uses expr for arithmetic. But yes, it is annoying that -e breaks some habits that work fine without it.
- seorphates 7y ago
  I can appreciate the quip, especially given my curmundgeonly entry. But the point remains. The shell needs to be able to call any command on the system reliably. Even aged old counting methods. At no point in that loop would the expr subprocess return other than zero. Try to break out of that loop with that bash switch. One should not rely on these magics, the ones that alter runtime behaviors, without truly understanding what you're after and what you're writing. Or mostly understand. They're fine and good if you have narrow routines with a very strict focus - "I'm in, I'm out, bang." The best switches available to the shell without a bunch of feature and package and library this or that bloat are exactly -x -n That's all that you need to ensure that your scripting is what you need it to be. Introduce the magic after you've written the thing. When it's ready and it passes your tests then test it again. Every single utility and package on that system is at your fingertips. Demand accuracy. I do.