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

Re: Early adopters of symbol based dependencies needed

Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:

> This change was precisely meant to silence those warnings. But it looks
> like this line is problematic:
> return exists $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC} and $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC}
>         and exists $self->{SONAME} and $self->{SONAME};
> It's parsed as:
> (return exists $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC}) and ...
> Replacing "and" by "&&" fixes the problem. It's weird because I'm pretty
> sure it worked before and I tested it. Anyway, it's fixed in git and
> will be in the next dpkg version.

Be careful about && because you can get the opposite problem.

    exists $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC && $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC}

will be parsed as

    exists ($self->{flags}{DYNAMIC && $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC})

It's often good style to always use parens with the argument to defined or
exists because they're most often the functions that get bitten by this.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: