[Bug 151] Review Request: systemc - Design and verification language for Hardware

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 23:51 +0100, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote:
> http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151

> --- Comment #19 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com>  2008-12-15 23:51:51 ---
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > (In reply to comment #16)
> > > As I noted before "ls" is not intended to be used in shell scripts.
> > No idea, what makes you think this. 
> > 
> > It's perfectly legitimate to use "ls" in shell scripts.
> > 
> 
> Just google "bash guide" or something similar and click on any of the results.
> I'm sure you will see that they will try to discourage you from parsing ls
> outputs. It's considered "bad" programming.
> 
> For instance see (scroll down to "NOTE:"):
> http://wooledge.org:8000/BashGuide#BashGuide.2BAC8-TheBasics.2BAC8-CommandsAndArguments.CommandsAndArguments

What this author says is entire BS.

1. "ls" is standardized by POSIX etc. 
2. It is not "intended to be used only for producing human-readable
results".

Furthermore, we are talking about building RPMs on Linux (i.e. in well
defined environment), not on general portability of ls (which, unlike
you and the author of the article above claim, exists).


Ralf