On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <ttann...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > NB Yes, I realise this will potentially break things, but why execute a > shell if you don't have to?
Fair point. I was once a Windoze user, who didn't realize what shell is and just want things to just work (like PATH etc). > I'd really like to make it do something like perl: > If you pass an array [ 'prog', '$TARGET', '$SOURCE' ] it doesn't execute a > shell. Otherwise (passing a single string), it will examine for special > characters, and if none are found it will split on white space and execute > that, or it will pass that line to the shell. Magic is good. Mystery should be banned. Rule of thumb for a good code is calculating chances. What is the chance that somebody no familiar with semantics will get what exactly code does without reading the docs? If the value is below 80% - drop it. If you can't drop it - write a comment. If the comment is too huge - find an issue on the internet and link to it. -- anatoly t. _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
