On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 03:14:42PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> - Every Unix-like system you encounter will have some version of the >>> Bourne >>> shell. Not every system will have Python. >> >> Not every system has bash. > > Well, yeah. That's why I said "Bourne shell" and not "bash." > >> I now write all my portable scripts in Perl since it >> is on every system I've met. > > It's not any more guaranteed than bash, though. For example, FreeBSD no > longer includes Perl with the base system; you have to install it as a > port. > >>> Stuff like 'for FILE in `ls *.wav` ; do lame -h -b 160 $FILE $FILE.mp3 >>> ; >>> done' to encode a bunch of WAV files to MP3, to give a crude example. >> >> This one is bad. Really. >> >> for FILE in *.wav; do lame -h -b 160 "$FILE" "$FILE.mp3"; done >> >> This is another reason why sh sucks. It's too easy to write broken >> things. So what's the right way to do this? I hacked one together the other day: IFS=$'\t\n'; for i in `find . -iname \*m4a`; do faad... blah blah blah and I knew it was a hack because setting $IFS just seems bad... possible unintended consquences, but it worked. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature