4 ms·
Yeah almost. I was thinking of ([ -f a ] && [ -f b ]) || ([ -f c ] && [ -f d ]) instead of (test -f a && test -f b) || (test -f c && test -f d)
by dataflow 6y ago
Yeah almost. I was thinking of
([ -f a ] && [ -f b ]) || ([ -f c ] && [ -f d ])
instead of
(test -f a && test -f b) || (test -f c && test -f d)
- dolmen 6y agoParentheses launch a subshell, so you probably want to use accolades instead: {[ -f a ] && [ -f b ] ;} || { [ -f c ] && [ -f d ] ;}
- dataflow 6y agoWith braces I'd prefer the test syntax actually, this is too many special characters to be comfortably readable for me. And yes I know it creates subshells, that was precisely what I was saying in my comment where I said the simplest syntax I could think of (i.e. that very code) creates subshells.