Only use unix-style variable references #38
Conversation
|
Okay, yeah, let's just do Linux. I'm okay with this. Not for code simplicity, but for compatibility.
After that, ready to merge! |
| if (windows) { | ||
| cash('echo %PATH%-%PATH%').should.equal(`${path}-${path}\n`); | ||
| // Case insensitive |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're going full-on bash, just drop the support for case sensitivity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, the issue here is that I put %path% instead of $path (I forgot to change it). Fixed this, and I'll push again.
|
Btw, I know you've got ShellJS all over your plate, but I thought I'd ask if you'd like to be a collaborator on Cash. It'd be good to have someone with experience on such a similar project. |
|
I'm more than willing to help out where I can. I have a few projects I'm working on right now, so I probably won't be too helpful with reviewing or making PRs, but I can chime in on POSIX compatibility issues when they arise. |
|
Okay that would be great. Thanks! |
|
@dthree Should be good now. I'm not sure why coveralls is failing (I don't have experience with it, personally) |
|
I think it just "fails" whenever you don't up coverage. Kind of stupid. |
Only use unix-style variable references
|
Looks great, you're awesome. 👍 |
|
👍 |
This is different than the direction that was decided on in #34 (see comment), but I think this might work out better in the long run (for posix compatibility). I opted to make this a separate pull request (rather than tack on to #37) since this is a very different approach.
This means things like
%PATH%always evaluate to the literal%PATH%, while references of the style$PATHor${PATH}evaluate to the value of the variable (or the empty string if this variable doesn't exist).The main advantages of this are:
echo %path%is guaranteed to be the literal value in both cash and bash)$PATHor$pathwork on Windows)This means that really tricky windows-specific examples (like
echo hi%invalid%computername%username%username%%%) aren't really going to have support (I can't think of an equivalent bash syntax that would have the same semantics). So, this is a tradeoff, but I think it's one that's probably worth discussing. And if POSIX compatibility is the goal, you probably won't need to support the other behavior.