Web lists-archives.com

Re: pmount could perhaps be of greater utility?




On 06.05.19 09:03, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Erik Christiansen (2019-05-04 08:43:53)
> > >  $ which lmount
> > >  lmount is a function
> > >  lmount () 
> > >  { 
> > >      pmount $1 `e2label $1`
> > >  }
> > 
> > I recommend to install package shellcheck and run "shellcheck lmount".
> 
> My initial reaction was similar, but he might not be using a regular
> shell.  At the very least, his "which" command is not the standard
> which(1) utility, because that wouldn't know about shell functions.
> 
> So, either he isn't in bash/ksh/dash, or his "which" command has been
> overridden with a function or alias.  (On the other hand, his output
> from "which" looks identical to bash's "type" output.  So maybe he
> did something like alias which=type.)

Well surmised, good sir. It's more than 30 years since I found "which"
on HP-UX inadequate and "type" meaninglessly mnemonic of "print", thus
the alias. Through SunOS, Solaris, and Linux, the inadequacy has
remained - and so the remedy.

> At the end of the day, if this is supposed to be a bash function, it
> has three quoting errors,

Yep, if the robustness required for users other than an author were
applicable, then I see two absences of double quotes. But it is worth
remembering that there are no robustness requirements when the author is
the only user, and supporting a space in "/dev/xxx" is in any event a
pointless exercise.

> and is using the ancient deprecated command substitution syntax (which
> will work in this case, but is not a good habit).

That does appear to remain opinion. The venerably traditional syntax is
still fully legal supported bash syntax, e.g.:

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_03

The recent (late last century, IIRC) introduction of the $(...)
alternative syntax has admittedly brought newer *nix users who know
nothing else, and so delude themselves that there is nothing else. That
is a misapprehension. To each, his own, especially amongst adequately
equivalent alternatives.

HAND

Erik
(Who has used the newfangled syntax on occasion, just to see if it works.)

-- 
Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you.            
Their tastes may not be the same.
                                      - George Bernard Shaw