On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:57:28AM -0400, Scott McDermott wrote:
> Ethan Benson on Thu 29/08 23:26 -0800:
> > you can argue that im being pedantic and the lack of quoting will
> > probably not matter in this script, but in some cases its just too
> > dangerous not to.
> nahh, for instance mktemp will never give you spaces or anything like
> that. Why quote when you can always guarantee you don't need to? I
because its the right thing to do, you don't know that someone won't
modify the mktemp part of the script just to have the rest fall apart
because it was written sloppily.
> think scripts which quote everything just to be safe for no reason are
> silly. Not that every case in the script was like that.
no they are correct. not quoting is just sloppy and creates fragile
broken scripts which break unecessarily.
not quoting variables, especially in [ ] constructs and rm -rf is pure
sloppy lazyness. never assume. just about every stupid assed bug i
find in software is do to stupid assumptions (all endianess is little!
all chars are signed! this variable won't ever be null! this variable
will never have a space or metacharacter! nobody will ever provide
more data then will fit in my fixed buffer size! why check? lets
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----