Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: Are there any plans for more readable, modern syntaxes for If statements?
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:52:59 +0700
Lines: 35
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.2610.1584111228.2412.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <CAAJSdjidSYg1yoWC7UbbLUUDF3ug9ekDtkOP7Er-JOjrLoDssQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB+qc9AAPQbzp92tv-FOR4Kh+2UdZyRwGiPOfNegVqv5UFnU5Q@mail.gmail.com> <f1d0d39d-b6e6-c33e-7463-226f6994b99e@archlinux.org> <4305.1584111179@jinx.noi.kre.to>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1584111229 18693 209.51.188.17 (13 Mar 2020 14:53:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu
Cc: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>, bug-bash@gnu.org
To: John McKown <john.archie.mckown@gmail.com>
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <CAAJSdjidSYg1yoWC7UbbLUUDF3ug9ekDtkOP7Er-JOjrLoDssQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:3c8:9009:181::2
X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell <bug-bash.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-bash@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash>, <mailto:bug-bash-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID: <4305.1584111179@jinx.noi.kre.to>
X-Mailman-Original-References: <CAAJSdjidSYg1yoWC7UbbLUUDF3ug9ekDtkOP7Er-JOjrLoDssQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB+qc9AAPQbzp92tv-FOR4Kh+2UdZyRwGiPOfNegVqv5UFnU5Q@mail.gmail.com> <f1d0d39d-b6e6-c33e-7463-226f6994b99e@archlinux.org>
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:16029

    Date:        Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:59:56 -0500
    From:        John McKown <john.archie.mckown@gmail.com>
    Message-ID:  <CAAJSdjidSYg1yoWC7UbbLUUDF3ug9ekDtkOP7Er-JOjrLoDssQ@mail.gmail.com>


  | I do things like:
  |
  | test <some relational test> && { true_command1;true_command2; : ; } || {
  | false_command1; false_command2; false_command3; }

That's OK, and at times I have been tempted that way, but it really is
easier to just do

	if <some relational test>
	then
		true_command1
		true_command2
	else
		false_command1
		false_command2
		false_command3
	fi

Not only do you not need to remember that the ':' command (or "true") is
important, but the exit status of all of this will be whichever of
true_command2 or false_command3 that was executed, which can be
used in other tests later.

The cost of typing a few extra words to make things clearer, and having
the code not look quite so "look what I can do ma" (ie: less "cool") is
worth it to be more clear, and less likely to have bugs.

kre