Re: RFC: use readable $(cmd) syntax instead of unreadable `cmd`
Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> writes:
> I have reported bugs against backtick and suggested to change to use the
> more readable alternative. The result was surprising. To quote one
> message (bug closed reasoning):
> "If your development environment cannot display ` differently than ' ,
> you need to get a new one."
> I'm askinf if it is ok to to reopen such bugs based of better QA
> aspects. Possibly by providing patches if the maintainer is busy
> elsewhere to handle such a "minor issue" from his perspective.
I have to admit that I agree with that response.
For one thing, $() has had some odd behavior and odd bugs, or has not been
supported, with some old shells. Personally, I prefer to use one and only
one shell script coding style that I know is portable rather than adopting
new shell features (most longer programs are better written in something
other than shell anyway, IMO, for maintainability).
For another, `` is more widely recognized I think, and therefore more
readable to the average developer, than $(), which looks like another of
the many ${#-*@} line-noise shell variable expansion syntaxes supported by
some shells.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: