From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28290 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2011 15:49:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 28236 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2011 15:49:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-72-93-220-155.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (72.93.220.155) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.83/v0.83-20-g38e4449) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:49:13 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E1E13C0C9 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:49:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 29ADE2B352; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:49:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:49:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: suggestion (was Re: 1.7.7: Localization does not follow the language of the OS) Message-ID: <20110113154910.GE10806@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com References: <44682.83.86.0.251.1294773608.squirrel@lavabit.com> <4D2CFAC9.6040706@laposte.net> <20110112095907.GC6353@calimero.vinschen.de> <4D2D7D5D.7080800@gmx.de> <20110112105559.GI6353@calimero.vinschen.de> <4D2DB29D.7010406@gmx.de> <0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A209BD8DAF7B@NIHMLBX02.nih.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A209BD8DAF7B@NIHMLBX02.nih.gov> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-q1/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 08:07:20AM -0500, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote: >Matthias Andree sent the following at Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:55 AM >> >>Am 12.01.2011 11:55, schrieb Corinna Vinschen: >>>> export LANG="$(locale -uU)" # (or -sU for system default locale) >>> >>> It's just another way to express the same. Backticks are not obsolete. >>> The backtick style is exactly as much POSIX as the $() style. See >>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.ht >>> ml#tag_18 >>> >>> Other than that, this isn't a mailing list about programming style. >> >>Try mixing backticks with quoting and blanks, or try nesting them, >>and then you'll know it's not about style but pretty much about >>functionality, hence, obsolete (whether it's labeled as such in the >>standard or not - there is a better alternative). >> >>If it were equivalent, I hadn't posted this. It isn't. > >Actually, I would argue that sometimes they are equivalent and sometimes >they are not. Think of it like physics. Newtonian mechanics and >relativity are different. Relativity always gives the correct answer and >Newtonian mechanics doesn't always do so, but we still use the older form >when it does. > >So if one wants to use something that always works, use $(). But when >`command` works, there is no reason not to use it if one wants to. >Personally, I still use backticks fairly often. > (1) On my keyboard, they are significantly easier to type than $(). > (2) It is a habit; $() did not exist when I started to learn scripting. Big ditto. I remember going to great lengths to work around ``'s lack of nestability back in the old days and cursing the shell syntax for not providing something better. Now that there is something better I always forget to use it. cgf