[pacman-dev] [PATCH 1/2] Changing [ to [[ and ((

[Cedric Staniewski]

Isaac Good wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 07:16:41PM +0000, Cedric Staniewski wrote:
>> I hope your patch do not get lost in this thread.
> 
> Erm. Yeah, I hope so too. How does it get threaded?
>

I guess you hit the reply button instead of writing a new mail to
pacman-dev. At least, there is the In-Reply-To header field in your mail
header.

>>> @@ -345,26 +345,26 @@ handle_deps() {
>>>  	local R_DEPS_SATISFIED=0
>>>  	local R_DEPS_MISSING=1
>>>  
>>> -	[ $# -eq 0 ] && return $R_DEPS_SATISFIED
>>> +	(( $# == 0 )) && return $R_DEPS_SATISFIED
>>>
>> Is there a reason why you do not use (( ! $# )) here?
> 
> Some variables are used as a boolean flag in which case testing if ((VAR)) and if (( ! VAR )) reads well. The $# (and EUID) are used as integer values so it struck me as more understandable or readable in this form.
>

I am fine with that, but would it not makes sense to use (( $# > 0 ))
instead of just (( $# )) then?

>>> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ generate_checksums() {
>>>  
>>>  		local i=0;
>>>  		local indent=''
>>> -		while [ $i -lt $((${#integ}+6)) ]; do
>>> +		while [[ $i -lt $((${#integ}+6)) ]]; do
>>>  			indent="$indent "
>>>  			i=$(($i+1))
>>>  		done
>> What about "while (( $i < $((${#integ}+6)) )); do"?
> 
> I was planning a separate patch switching to a for loop.
> for (( i = 0; i < ${#integ} + 6; i++ ))
>

In this case, I would either get rid of -lt by converting to a for loop
 directly or not touch that line at all in this patch.

> Should I implement these changes and resend this patch?
> /me goes looking for git help 
> 

If you like, but you could also wait for at least Allan's comment. You
can use "git commit --amend" to alter your existing commit in git by the
way.