Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Purists will note we use
>
> test -n "$foo"
>
> instead of
>
> test "x$foo" != "x"
>
>
> Hmmm. The latter certainly does look more portable...but it's so ugly...
I don't find it /that/ ugly. I actually find it almost more readable
than the former ;-)
--
/ / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/
- / / - / / /_/ / EPITA / LRDE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/_/ / /_/ / /__ / 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel. +33 (1) 44 08 01 77
94276 Kremlin-Bic�tre cedex Fax. +33 (1) 44 08 01 99
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Paul Eggert
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Ian Lance Taylor
- Portable programming (was: config.cache consider... Russ Allbery
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Didier Verna
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Felix Lee
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Harlan Stenn
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Felix Lee
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Alexandre Oliva
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Tom Tromey
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
