Re: [Bashburn-info] Substantial change to the configure function.

[Steven W. O. <st...@sy...>]

On Wednesday, Sep 3rd 2008 at 02:26 -0000, quoth Nick Warne:

=>On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 01:00:17 -0400 (EDT)
=>"Steven W. Orr" <st...@sy...> wrote:
=>
=>> We now have a Revert function in the Configure option.
=>> 
=>> If you change a value, it will not take place until you Apply it. If
=>> you Revert, then all changes will be wiped out.
=>> 
=>> This is a rather substantial change and I (as usual) think I got it
=>> right. No bets.
=>> 
=>> There is some English language text in configure.
=>> 
=>> And finally, the BashBurn.sh had to get re-structured. It's vital
=>> that all sourcing not happen from the context of a subroutine. To
=>> make a long story short:
=>> 
=>> -------bar.sh------
=>> 
=>> typeset -ri intval=44
=>> 
=>> ------end of bar.sh
=>> 
=>> foo()
=>> {
=>>      . bar.sh
=>> }
=>> 
=>> will cause intval to be a local variable inside foo and never
=>> globally available. You might not care except that I still want the
=>> option of creating and declaring global variables.
=>> 
=>> Enjoy. It's 1AM and I'm outtahee.
=>> 
=>
=>OK, I get syntax errors when starting... it looks like bash doesn't
=>like empty functions.  If I remove them, all seems well but I don't
=>know what you was doing here so haven't changed anything.
=>
=>line 285: syntax error near unexpected token `}'
=>
=>source_language_modules()
=>{
=>}   <---------------------------------

This goes to show that committing at 01:30 is risky business.


BTW, bash is correct. A function is not allowed to be empty. There must be 
something there. The standard null statement is:

:

continue or break have no meaning outside of the context of a loop.

But you did identify another minor problem in configure.sh. Please 
update.

Thanks.

-- 
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have  .0.
happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0
Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000
individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question?
steveo at syslang.net