Re: [Bashdb-devel] reading progress...

[R. B. <ro...@pa...>]

Masatake YAMATO writes:
 > We can check the existence of wc at runtime.

Okay, that adds to reliability. 

 > We can use wc when if it exists. cat can be replaced with "<".

Good. I think it helps to reduce dependencies on external commands
when they are not necessary. And it looks like with a little extra
thought, it is not needed here. 

 > I should not call "wc -l < $file" when the script is under a 1,000 lines.

Good. 

 > If the lines over 1000, calling "wc -l < $file" once is just small overhead
 > against the total reading time.
 > 
 > BTW, I wrote a progress bar. Newer patch for bashdb will be based on this progress bar.

Great. 

- -

I know it might not seem so, but part of the purpose of this project
was to open bash development up more and encourage more people to be
more involved to do whatever things that may be of interest.  (My
desires were to have a debugger and a time-stamped history; the latter
is completly done and the former is functional even though it could
use a lot of improvement. My next big thing will probably be a
debugger for GNU make even if it is as flaky as this debugger
initially was.)

It always surprises and fascinates me what interests others, and what
they find and improve. Sometimes I don't initially see it, but I'm
always surprised and delighted over time at how things have become
much better with everyone's contributions, even in areas or aspects
that I didn't initially understand/appreciate. 

This is a long-winded way of saying - So go for it!