From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6635 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2020 18:52:37 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Sep 2020 18:52:37 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C9B2C9CF01; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 04:52:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78879CED4; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 04:51:52 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key; unprotected) header.d=smtpservice.net header.i=@smtpservice.net header.b="AqF1b5br"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8AADA9CED4; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 04:51:49 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 528 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 04:51:47 AEST Received: from a2i280.smtp2go.com (a2i280.smtp2go.com [103.47.205.24]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDF949CED0 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 04:51:47 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smtpservice.net; s=m33y30.a1-4.dyn; x=1601406408; h=Feedback-ID: X-Smtpcorp-Track:To:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Reply-To:From:Sender: List-Unsubscribe; bh=/fDUkcNGdE/K4BGx1p1VrndGM15TWIHygsRKSnbqXgg=; b=AqF1b5br HnQtt3xbYc5c7N+Tvu9fswOzHbX4EllKOb15yBgLnS9wHnTuxas9LjxEpWljHj1XcelC6p+tTNUSf x0ilXBHsmZtEAHMllGQVbjlidC+B3gSPgZNS0y8gQoWap2zXbQhyIToaQni5RVb5gWW4D5zg4jbQy 0YENxc/tpoPq6+2E1TH71NsgTD7wjjhGLaAyScrPV2Qa0LNwn4chP9kfWbgcWgeHlS9hWSRAW5hTS KaTNylqHtOGiMCYLazZbTXzrZqWx99VGn7sXDjmWgCQ4jc5LpiuztTGPrHRt4fMR5zyAikSg4ZCRF 370O750F3DkGFZ3RQT7IPIW+BQ==; Received: from [10.45.79.71] (helo=SmtpCorp) by smtpcorp.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92-S2G) (envelope-from ) id 1kNKaX-pH9SnS-Gr for tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:42:57 +0000 Received: from [10.107.193.50] (helo=kdbarto.org) by smtpcorp.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92-S2G) (envelope-from ) id 1kNKaW-Duue2M-Qk for tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:42:56 +0000 Received: from zaphod.local (zaphod.local [IPv6:fe80::41f:c4be:596a:6b20]) by kdbarto.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C833A218B6AF for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:42:55 -0700 (PDT) From: David Barto Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) Message-Id: <300084CC-77EA-44D4-9DB1-DC321B9F3F0B@kdbarto.org> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:42:55 -0700 To: TUHS main list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) X-Smtpcorp-Track: 1kNKaWDII-2uQk.c7jxcPaLGKx8E Feedback-ID: 145083m:145083a-yaNWS:145083sCddFHHQth X-Report-Abuse: Please forward a copy of this message, including all headers, to Subject: [TUHS] SH script formatting X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: david@kdbarto.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" In a brief discussion with a coworker today the question of formatting = shell scripts came up. I believed that in the past the preferred format (if there ever were any = such thing) was if [ test ] then statements else statements fi I can find nothing specific to back this up. More appropriate for COFF = maybe would be a discussion of what format is better if [ test ]; then statements else statements fi or the above. No intention to start any kind of flame war about which is better, just = want to see if there is any historical option for one over the other. David=