Ryan Scott writes: > Michael Shapiro wrote: > > > I'm more than happy for it to be published, just ask that you keep > > the attribution on it so people who have questions and complaints > > can whine at me directly. Maybe when we're done with ksh93 we > > can have a mode which enforces it automatically built-in :) > > Since we have cstyle, maybe someone should write shstyle. > > I'd do it myself, but then I'd have to run it against the scripts I've > already put back, and the amount of work that would generate just scares me > too much ;-)
I don't think we should block the creation of a useful new tool like that (something that ought to be plugged into 'wx' along with the other style checkers) just because the existing scripts aren't already clean. If we worked that way, we'd never have cstyle or lint, because the gate itself isn't entirely cstyle or lint clean. It'd probably be necessary to make at least one non-trivial script clean (to make sure that the tool itself works), but doing "all" of them shouldn't be a gating item. Instead, file a bug. :-/ -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
