Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Em 17-10-2015 14:12, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
So, the preference now in the book is not to use braces.
Will modify one update I 'm going to do, to leave without braces.
I did modify.
Discussing from a technical point of view.
It may be difficult reading or writing with braces. But it is much
better in terms or information. To write or read, what I do is (using
the example that started the thread in -book:
$ ls -d /usr/{include,share/{gtk-doc/html,}}/poppler
/usr/include/poppler /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/poppler /usr/share//poppler
Here, I see that it should have een written:
/usr/{include,share{/gtk-doc/html,}}/poppler
Thus:
$ ls -d /usr/{include,share{/gtk-doc/html,}}/poppler
/usr/include/poppler /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/poppler /usr/share/poppler
I would like to continue using braces. I see that all directories are
named poppler, they are all under /usr, one under include and two under
share, a proper poppler and another for gtk-doc/html. All in one inspection.
For the separated ones, the interpretation is not unified.
If I'm doing it under DESTDIr, I use a "." or remove first slash:
$ ls -d ./usr/{include,share{/gtk-doc/html,}}/poppler
./usr/include/poppler ./usr/share/gtk-doc/html/poppler ./usr/share/poppler
or
$ ls -d usr/{include,share{/gtk-doc/html,}}/poppler
usr/include/poppler usr/share/gtk-doc/html/poppler usr/share/poppler
Can I go on using braces?
You are an expert. It makes sense to you. Many of our users are not
experts. I don't have a problem with one level of braces:
/usr/include/poppler
/usr/share{,/gtk-doc/html}/poppler
or better
/usr/{include,share}/poppler
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/poppler
but two levels of braces are difficult to for many people to easily
understand, especially when they are not in a section where we expect a
user to paste it into the command line.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
