[gobolinux-users] Gobo wants you! (to comment its scripts)

[Daniele Maccari]

Michael Homer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Daniele Maccari <gobo.users at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Michael Homer wrote:
>>     
>>> Anything that has an effect beyond returning a value (by output or by
>>>       
>>  > return). Changing variable definitions, outputting to the user (also
>>  > what Show_Version does), terminating the script are all side effects.
>>  >
>>  So, for example, Add_Option updates the options arrays: has it to be
>>  considered a side effect?
>>  I'd say yes, since arrays are global to the whole script.
>>     
> Hmm. Possibly (technically, yes), although those arrays are internal
> to the function, rather than part of the interface. I was more
> thinking of functions like String_To_Array, which also defines an
> array, but one you're meant to use.
>
> I would note anything that you would or should notice as a caller, and
> leave out anything specific to the internals of the function. There's
> no real encapsulation in bash, so it's a bit of a judgment call which
> category any one thing fits into.
>   
>>  As a side note, I could have inserted some blank lines between chunks of
>>  code when I felt them a bit "compressed", this making them not so
>>  clear/readable. Please let me know what you think about this.
>>     
> I don't have an opinion on that in the general case. If it's unclear
> as a big block, add a blank line, but don't go crazy with it.
>   
>>  Last but not least, I've got a little doubt about what this piece of
>>  code does, could you please help me? http://pastebin.com/m78380740
>>
>>  If I got it right, it loops through the current string's characters to
>>  find a valid shortening. At the end, if none was found, it "Log_Error"s
>>  the failure. What I cannot understand is why looping for all characters,
>>  shouldn't an option be identified by its first character only? Though
>>  maybe I'm missing the eval option=\${${i}} part.
>>     
> It loops for compressed short options (which I didn't know we
> supported), and eats the rest of the string/the next parameter if it
> hits an Entry or List item. Think of it working like `tar -xjvf
> file.tar.bz2`; x,j,v are Boolean options that are enabled, f is an
> Entry item that eats the next parameter (and breaks from the loop over
> characters).
> -Michael
>   
Ok, it should be ok now, I mailed the patch to the devel list, mainly to 
keep this thread as dedicated to pure ideas/organization as possible. 
Thanks again for the help.

Bye