Op Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:04:42 -0400 (EDT) schreef Igor Pechtchanski
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
: > + ( exit ${STATUS} ) || exit ${STATUS}
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > + shift
: > +done
:
: Do we really need a subshell here? Isn't an "if" test enough (and more
: efficient)?
Some thoughts. I did not do any testing on this.
*) ``if test ${STATUS} -ne 0 ; then exit ${STATUS} fi'' does fork
a ``test'', doesn't it?
*) ISTR ``autoconf'' generated ``configure''-s use a similar method.
*) Most of the gbs-functions use a subshell ``(cd ${srcdir}...'';
*) Relative to a configure, make or check this overhead should be
neglible.
: P.S. I'm wondering whether I should ask for two separate patches, as they
: are independent and it's a bit hard to see the addition of "ispatch()"
: with the indentation adjustment...
Hence the ``diff -b'' copy of the patch... If you decide I need to split
this up, please let me know if you prefer any order of the patches, or
should they be independant (from a common ancestor, for you to merge).
l8r,
Buzz.
--
) | | ---/ ---/ Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
-- | | / / really is | and false bits entirely. | mail for
) | | / / a 72 by 4 +-------------------------------+ any1 but
-- \--| /--- /--- .sigfile. | |perl -pe "s.u(z)\1.as." | me. 4^re
