Printable View
I'm looking through some source at sourceforge and I came across a batch script that was using "$@" and I cant find out what it's referencing since you can't google symbols like that. I'm sure it's something basic. If someone can enlighten me, i'd appreciate it.
Similar but not identical to $*
Code:#!/bin/bash
test_func() {
for x in $@; do
echo $x;
done;
}
test_func this that etc
man bashQuote:
Originally Posted by Verneg
Bash for shell scripts is evil thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valery Reznic
Why do you think bash is evil ? I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fronty
Bash for interactive use isn't evil (I don't like it in that use either, but it doesn't matter here). If you use bash, people using systems which don't come with bash have to modify at least shebang. If you use some bash-isms, users of other shells have to modify your code too. If you use plain /bin/sh, it will work in every system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valery Reznic
If you put as shebang #!/bin/bash they should modify nothing, save may be installing bash.Quote:
Originally Posted by fronty
But same is hold for python, perl, ruby , awk - any interpreted language.
Why would you put /bin/bash if you don't use any features which depend on bash? And I think that is even worse like using some other thing that binds the code to some platform, if it could be implemented with standard features which would make it usable without modifications on other platforms. I've seen too much code which relys on some stupid linuxism, because too many programmers think any unixish system == linux. And why shouldn't they modify anything, even hashbang to make it usable on their system? Forcing people to install some shell would be rediculous. And if I install something, hell no I would put anything in /bin or anything directly under root. /usr/local or possibly /opt is for installed programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valery Reznic
/bin/sh is more generic, but the thread is called "Linux Shell Script $@", and the linux shell is bash, and it is in /bin. If not, you should have a softlink in bin called bash.
Vis, bashism, arrays are a bashism, so I'm not even sure basic C-shell syntax includes $@ (but maybe it does). In any case, if you are scripting for bash you might as well put "/bin/bash" at the top so there will be no confusion there. Otherwise, you are going to have to do a lot of work and testing trying to figure what is truly generic and what isn't (I don't think there is a formal standard in place here). You do not have to learn about every shell in order to script for one of them.
It seems much more reasonable, if you want to port a bash script to a non-bash system, for you to do the conversion, rather than expect bash scripters to write for you. The fact that bash includes c shell syntax and hence sh scripts are common and work on linux systems does not mean that the same thing has to be true the other way around -- otherwise there would be no point in a bash shell.
This is a matter of preference and that's your opinion which I most likely can't change here.
By the way, csh and sh are very different thing and incompatible on VERY large parts.
You're right, "sh" refers to the original Bourne shell, which I thot was 100% derived from the C-shell (which I've never used). But it isn't, so some of what I wrote is a little mixed up. Your contention makes a little bit more sense too, but I still don't think people who script for bash should be expected to learn the difference if they never actually use the original sh -- they you are just asking for trouble from apparently portable scripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by fronty
Unix shell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia