On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:21:12 +
Marc Herbert wrote:
> Matias A. Fonzo a écrit :
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:16:13 +
> > Marc Herbert wrote:
>
> >> In case anyone is interested my winner (so far) is:
> >>
> >> exists()
> >> {
> >> [ -e "$1" -o -L "$1" ]
> >> }
> >>
> >
>
> > The -L i
Am 12/14/09 13:37, schrieb Marc Herbert:
Bernd Eggink a écrit :
To avoid misunderstandings, let me add that you are right (only) with
respect to variables being used _without_ declaration.
OK, but not having to explicitly "declare" variables is a feature that
most people expect from dynamic la
Bernd Eggink a écrit :
> To avoid misunderstandings, let me add that you are right (only) with
> respect to variables being used _without_ declaration.
OK, but not having to explicitly "declare" variables is a feature that
most people expect from dynamic languages, so you can hardly blame them
fo
Matias A. Fonzo a écrit :
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:16:13 +
> Marc Herbert wrote:
>> In case anyone is interested my winner (so far) is:
>>
>> exists()
>> {
>> [ -e "$1" -o -L "$1" ]
>> }
>>
>
> The -L is redundant.
Not for me. I need -L because I want to consider broken symlinks just
l
