On 13.01.13 23:38, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
>>
>>> - /^\s*[^#]\s*which\s/ and err 'which is not portable (please use type)';
>>> + /^\s*[^#]\s*which\s+[-a-zA-Z0-9]+$/ and err 'which is not portable
>>> (please use type)';
>>
>> Hmm. Neither the old version nor the new one matches what seem to
>> be typical uses of 'which', based on a quick code search:
>>
>> if which sl >/dev/null 2>&1
>> then
>> sl -l
>> ...
>> fi
>>
>> or
>>
>> if test -x "$(which sl 2>/dev/null)"
>> then
>> sl -l
>> ...
>> fi
>
> Yes, these two misuses are what we want it to trigger on, so the
> test is very easy to trigger and produce a false positive, but does
> not trigger on what we really want to catch.
>
> That does not sound like a good benefit/cost ratio to me.
>
Thanks for comments, I think writing a regexp for which is difficult.
What do we think about something like this for fishing for which:
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -644,6 +644,10 @@ yes () {
:
done
}
+which () {
+ echo >&2 "which is not portable (please use type)"
+ exit 1
+}
This will happen in runtime, which might be good enough ?
@Matt:
>The "[^#]" appears to ensure that there's at least one character
>before the which and that it's not a pound sign. Why is this done?
This is simply wrong.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
