Message-ID: <5afc481f-00fa-176a-5210-f877c8a33a9e@schinagl.nl>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:33:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Reply-To: oliver+list@schinagl.nl
Subject: Re: Fixing shell script libraries like /lib/libalpine.sh
Content-Language: nl
To: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
References: <4caa8c5f-7ebf-ad2f-0e92-29428785fe60@wildtechgarden.ca>
 <Yr1Lll3DNQGGeAGt@codewreck.org>
From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl>
In-Reply-To: <Yr1Lll3DNQGGeAGt@codewreck.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 30-06-2022 09:07, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Daniel F. Dickinson wrote on Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 02:16:49AM -0400:
>> # test the first argument against the remaining ones, return success on
>> a match
>> isin() {
>>      local _a=$1 _b
>>      shift
>>      for _b; do
>>          [ "$_a" = "$_b" ] && return 0
>>      done
>>      return 1
>> }
>>
>> _b is never assigned a value. This is why automating ntp setup fails
>> (specifically the following code in /sbin/setup-ntp) will never skip the
>> 'ask':
> 
> `for _b; do` is identical to `for _b in "$@"; do` and assigns the values
> properly.
Wouldn't the identical variant not be preferred in code? It reads easier 
and is _obvious_ what happens.

Writing code happens rarly, that we shouldn't try to optimize it to be 
as short as possible; reading code however, we do often, so having it 
more readable is usually for the better ...

Also, 'hidden' features/side effects tend to be never nice, because what 
you know, does not mean others know as well ;) (we you, not you-you)

Olliver

> The function works properly for me.
> 
> setup-ntp also works for me, what exactly are you experiencing or
> expecting?
> 
> --
> Asmadeus | Dominique Martinet