Problem with mutt script

Derek Martin invalid at
Fri Apr 20 22:01:50 UTC 2018

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 08:24:43PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-04-17 14:28:17 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > One wonders what systems these are, and whether this is even worth
> > considering.  If it is, I believe Bourne shell allows compound tests
> > like the following: 
> > 
> >   [ -f $file -o -d $file ]
> AFAIK, -o is not portable and has been marked obsolescent.
> You should write:
>   [ -f "$file" ] || [ -d "$file" ]

Sure, I have no issue with writing it that way... it's probably
slighly less efficient, but whether it is or isn't is not interesting

I have doubts about the "not portable" comment though...  AFAICT it's
currently supported by Bourne, Korn, Bash, and all POSIX-compliant
shells.  I'm not sure where it wouldn't port to, other than to shells
which don't have Bourne-like syntax in the first place.  Arguing that
the syntax is obsolete, when the point is to support an entire shell
that is obsolete, seems redundant.  But I think since both versions of
the syntax should be well supported it's purely academic.

Derek D. Martin   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Mutt-dev mailing list