Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #7768

Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted?

Path csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.pionier.net.pl!pwr.wroc.pl!news.wcss.wroc.pl!not-for-mail
From orcus@pwr.wroc.pl
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.misc, comp.os.linux.networking
Subject Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted?
Date Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:43:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization Politechnika Wroclawska
Lines 14
Message-ID <slrnklsi2l.dl7.orcus@orcus.wcss.wroc.pl> (permalink)
References <kji5s8$31t$5@dont-email.me> <kjkja8$952$1@dont-email.me> <87hajm9j5k.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host orcus.wcss.wroc.pl
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
X-Trace z-news.wcss.wroc.pl 1365133399 8513 156.17.1.3 (5 Apr 2013 03:43:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To abuse@news.pwr.wroc.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:43:19 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux)
Xref csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:7768 comp.os.linux.networking:2088

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw


On 2013-04-04, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Chris Glur writes:
>> And if so I'm waiting for a comment on my observation
>> that since the () could be a zilllion lines, it's a crappy
>> syntax to have the 'initialisation' at the END.
>
> It is what it is.  If you don’t like it, I suggest using some different
> language with syntax more to your taste.

Or put () in file, remove redirections and use exec to open fds.

-- 
Pozdrawiam
orcus

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Avoid9Pdf@gmail.com - 2013-04-03 20:11 +0000
  Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-04-03 21:10 +0000
    Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-04-03 22:34 +0100
      Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-04-04 04:40 +0000
        Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2013-04-04 14:01 +0000
    Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Avoid9Pdf@gmail.com - 2013-04-04 19:12 +0000
      Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-04-04 20:43 +0100
        Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2013-04-05 03:43 +0000
          Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2013-04-05 19:54 +0000
      Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-04-04 22:55 +0000
        Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-04-05 09:12 +0100
          Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-04-05 16:35 +0000
            Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-04-05 17:50 +0100
        Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-04-05 16:02 +0000
          Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2013-04-05 19:58 +0000
        Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 19:44 +0000
          Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2013-04-05 19:51 +0000
      Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Surinder <Surinder.Singh@example.net> - 2013-04-09 11:20 +0530
  Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2013-04-08 14:37 +0000
    Re: Is bash.sh compiled or interpreted? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-04-08 21:08 +0300

csiph-web