[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Are there any plans for more readable, modern syntaxes for If statem

From: Eli Schwartz
Subject: Re: Are there any plans for more readable, modern syntaxes for If statements?
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:27:34 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0

On 3/13/20 7:59 AM, John McKown wrote:
> I do things like:
> test <some relational test> && { true_command1;true_command2; : ; } || {
> false_command1; false_command2; false_command3; }
> Notice the command : (colon) as the last command in the true. The reason
> that I put it there is to guarantee that the $? from the series of
> "true_commnds" is 0 (aka "true") so that the commands in the || are not
> executed.

OP: "I want readable, modern syntax for If statements, inspired by C."

You: "Don't use If, use &&, which doesn't look like a C If either."

I'm... not following? I mean, yes, the things which you do are valid
bash syntax, and yes, they seem to do what you want them to do, but I
don't *really* understand how they tie in to the premise of the thread.

In contrast, "abuse parser macros" is a valid if terrible answer to the
question of changing the syntax of a bash feature. Something which is
otherwise not really an option, since 40-year-old languages do not
change fundamental syntax on a whim as though they are, I dunno, perl6.

(I am still mindblown that "I want a modern syntax for XXXX" can
possibly lead to "imitate C, which is 50 years old and thus astoundingly
even less modern than the Bourne shell by an entire decade".)

Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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