ports/165623: Mk/bsd.comands.mk et al -- conflicting uses of ${FILE}
Chris Rees
utisoft at gmail.com
Sat Mar 3 13:40:18 UTC 2012
The following reply was made to PR ports/165623; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com>
To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
Cc: "bug-followup at freebsd.org" <bug-followup at freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: ports/165623: Mk/bsd.comands.mk et al -- conflicting uses of ${FILE}
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:34:58 +0000
On 3 March 2012 13:29, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk> wro=
te:
> On 03/03/2012 12:56, Chris Rees wrote:
>
>> Or we could put the portlint check in, and people who don't want to see =
it
>> complain could use lowers for loop vars.
>>
>> Sorry to go on about this, but it's very important to differentiate,
>> considering that their behaviour is very different from regular variable=
s.
>>
>> Note that I withdraw my objection to FILE_CMD as per pointers from other=
s :)
>
> So make it a matter of style that loop iterators should be lower case?
> That is an idea I can agree with. =A0Not being too prescriptive about it,
> and allowing people to make that modification organically -- when they
> have to update a port for another reason, etc. is also something I can
> agree with.
>
> Although it turns out there's fewer instances of using uppercase
> iterators than I at first thought:
>
> lucid-nonsense:/usr/ports:% grep -rlE '^\. *for +[A-Z]+' * | wc -l
> =A0 =A0 341
I think it's a matter of style, but also makes people think harder
when they make boo-boos like:
OTHER=3D TWO
.for iterator in ONE TWO THREE
. if ${iterator} =3D=3D ${OTHER}
FOO=3D bar
. endif
.endfor
which ends up as a malformed conditional. Alarm bells ring more
quickly if one sees the lowercase used on the left like this. (should
be ${OTHER} =3D=3D ${iterator})
Have I confused anyone yet?
Chris
More information about the freebsd-ports-bugs
mailing list