Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:40:20 +0800 From: Joe <joeb_722@comclark.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Janne Snabb <snabb@epipe.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Subject: Re: [new port] usage of shar command Message-ID: <4C465E14.1060300@comclark.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007201343310.1689@qbhto.arg> References: <4C42CFDA.3040409@comclark.com> <4C42D292.208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4C4388D2.30200@comclark.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007190216290.9805@tiktik.epipe.com> <20100720190602.GA32624@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007201343310.1689@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> The major problems with backticks is that they tend to be inconspicuous >> (and easily confused with bits of dust or fly-droppings) and are often >> difficult to distinguish from quotes. >> >> Rather than write "`find port_dir` (note the backticks)", IMO, it is >> far easier to write $(find port_dir) - which is syntactically the >> same but visually more obvious. > > That's a fair point. Do you think that the text as it currently exists > is sufficiently clear, or do you think that it still needs the > modification you're suggesting? I'm happy to make the change (or someone > else can if they so desire) if that's what people thing is the right way > to go. > > > Doug > The text as its currently exists is a long way from being clear to a first timer. And I am talking about the new change that just went in. "shar `find port_dir` (note the backticks)", or "shar $(find port_dir)" both address the problem nicely. By all means go and make the correction.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C465E14.1060300>