bug-bash
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-bash] make function local


From: Linda Walsh
Subject: Re: [Help-bash] make function local
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:27:12 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird



Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
Well, if your scripts are so simple, why use local functions at all?
---
        Cleanliness, Hygiene...

 You're
claiming we invent stuff to make your examples fail, but I don't know anyone
that writes such complex code for very simple tasks that can even be done
without functions.
---
        You know of me -- but you know nothing of my use case.

So, the burden to prove these convoluted approaches are
justified is on *your* side.
---
        I don't need to justify my code to you.  Someone asked
for a use case, and I supplied one.

I didn't write that code for this discussion. Last mod-time was 1 month ago (Mar 17). I wrote it BEFORE any of this discussion on
local functions.

The "local" function you provided is clearly a fake case.
---
        If it is "clearly" a fake case, you are clearly an idiot.  I've
been using that code for it's purpose, unchanged for over a month.  That's
what is clear.

Provide real world
cases, so that we can make real world criticism and take decisions that affect
people writing actual useful code.
----
        Your definition of real-world cases are ones that you can provide
"real world criticism" to shoot down any example provided.  I'm not the only
one who notices that tendency on this list:


Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Chet Ramey <address@hidden> wrote:
[Show us your valid real world example]

One could also ask the same question for local variables. Any limited
cases that show local variable is need, by definition, can be changed
to ones in which global variables can also work.

Therefore, ***no matter what small examples that I should show here, it will ***
   ***always be criticized as can be solved by an alternative solution ***.
-----
[Emphasis mine].
Peng Yu says the same thing.  No matter what case someone comes up with,
there are the rigid-thinkers who believe they, and they alone can judge
what are "real world" and "not fake" cases.  GAG!


If that's the complete script...

Now you are setting up your own strawman cases to shoot down.

I showed 12 lines with an *ellipses* after the code out of a 70 line script
and you start making arguments based on those 12 lines being the
entirety of the script.

I deliberately didn't show the rest of the script because it was
not important to show a use case developed and in use long before
this discussion was started --- so unless you have some evidence that
it is a 'fake' script, I'd say you are purposely lying to support
your case.

You don't read what we write. Just like with my note "IFS=:& splitting paths -- (maybe fixed in 4.3?)", where you answered "what the fuck".
If you had read the entire note -- I pointed out 4 examples of
behavior that exists, asking "rhetorical" questions about how
the behavior was justified -- because the last example contradicted
the previous examples.

You skipped that last question in your response, and totally missed
the point FLAMING me for my observations and questioning of behavior
on the 1st 4.    Then you again go off on me saying:

"I guess you think that you look smart by
obfuscating your code with aliases and weird names, but it's the opposite
effect. Also, it annoys people that are trying to understand what you say to
'help'[sic] you."

Another example of your twisting words and not reading what is there:

I talked about IFS being 'thrashed' -- i.e. it no longer has it's initial default value, and there is no way to set it to "default"
other than reinitializing it with some arbitrary hardcoded default.

You go off and say "what do you mean by 'IFS is trashed'?" Notice "thrash" -- from "goog: define thrashed" 1st entry urban dictionary: thrashed -- destroyed or hurt really badly, usually used to refer to someone after they have tried a huge gap and died.
I was referring to a built-in variable that had it's default
meaning (contents) overwritten to the point of not being able
to recover it (except by hardcoding the current "default" into
an assignment). Please stop looking to pick apart my words. It doesn't matter WHAT type of example I come up with. You will
find some reason to _not_ understand it and call it fake, unreal or
annoying.  Please, Eduardo: learn some new way of "helping" people --
calling them liars (accusing them of writing "fake" code) isn't helpful.







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]