Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:57:49 +0300 From: Michael Telahun Makonnen <mmakonnen@gmail.com> To: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, "bug-followup@freebsd.org" <bug-followup@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: docs/172692: [PATCH] Bring parts of the rc scripting guides up to date Message-ID: <507FA86D.5040905@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_GZwcDaRc-Aujjrky7j0UdXkoD4c%2Bvg16FH2d%2Bd_LixQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201210141319.q9EDJN6H085443@freefall.freebsd.org> <507C39D0.9030909@gmail.com> <CADLo83_GZwcDaRc-Aujjrky7j0UdXkoD4c%2Bvg16FH2d%2Bd_LixQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/15/2012 09:26 PM, Chris Rees wrote: >> Not sure why you felt this paragraph needed to be removed. > > Because the style is clearer and makes it much more obvious when a > variable is having its own default value set. In ports at least, the > current style is to use the less verbose form. > ok > >> While you are technically correct, I think you misunderstood the >> writer's intent, which was to show how an rc.conf(8) variable can be >> used in a subroutine to control the behavior of the command. I agree >> that the example isn't a very good one (in that it doesn't depict a >> valid use case), but I think the "spirit" is correct. Maybe you can >> suggest a better example? >> > > I think that this script is very simple by design, and making a better > example would complicate it. It is definitely worth pointing out the > alternative though; it makes useful food for thought; both examples > with a disclaimer. ok > > [1] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/rc-scripting-modernise2.diff > Looks fine to me. Thanks for taking the time to update the documentation. Cheers, Mike.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?507FA86D.5040905>