From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 21 02:40:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF27106566C; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:40:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joeb_722@comclark.com) Received: from avmxsmtp3.comclark.com (avmxsmtp3.comclark.com [202.69.191.117]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706548FC19; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:40:23 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhsXAN/6RUzKRaxEPGdsb2JhbAAHh2qYDQEBAQE1wGiFMgSDfocc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,235,1278259200"; d="scan'208";a="14491151" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.0.10.3]) ([202.69.172.68]) by avmxsmtp3.comclark.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2010 10:40:22 +0800 Message-ID: <4C465E14.1060300@comclark.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:40:20 +0800 From: Joe User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4C42CFDA.3040409@comclark.com> <4C42D292.208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4C4388D2.30200@comclark.com> <20100720190602.GA32624@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Janne Snabb , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: [new port] usage of shar command X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:40:24 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> The major problems with backticks is that they tend to be inconspicuous >> (and easily confused with bits of dust or fly-droppings) and are often >> difficult to distinguish from quotes. >> >> Rather than write "`find port_dir` (note the backticks)", IMO, it is >> far easier to write $(find port_dir) - which is syntactically the >> same but visually more obvious. > > That's a fair point. Do you think that the text as it currently exists > is sufficiently clear, or do you think that it still needs the > modification you're suggesting? I'm happy to make the change (or someone > else can if they so desire) if that's what people thing is the right way > to go. > > > Doug > The text as its currently exists is a long way from being clear to a first timer. And I am talking about the new change that just went in. "shar `find port_dir` (note the backticks)", or "shar $(find port_dir)" both address the problem nicely. By all means go and make the correction.