Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#2This looks pretty cool!
I can't ever imagine using it tho :) If my bash scripts are so complex or critical that I feel the need to type check, I will probably use another scripting language where I can do that more easily while still having readable code.
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#3This looks pretty cool! I can't ever imagine using it tho :) If my bash scripts are so complex or critical that I feel the need to type check, I will probably use another scripting language where I can do that more easily while still having readable code.
If you ever check your arguments for any properties then this could still help, you'll have a systematic approach instead of an ad hoc one.
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#4>It is also a very cursed idea taken way too far, and I do not apologize for it
Agreed XD
It's a really nice idea but I cannot ever see myself writing bash like this
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#5> the builtin types are:
> [...]
> boolean: a shortcut for returning a number (as numbers are booleans).
Can someone explain? I can understand booleans being numbers (e.g. #define TRUE 1 in C), but how are numbers booleans in bash?
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#6> the builtin types are: > [...] > boolean: a shortcut for returning a number (as numbers are booleans). Can someone explain? I can understand booleans being numbers (e.g. #define TRUE 1 in C), but how are numbers booleans in bash?
Booleans in shell scripts are little more than zero (true) and non-zero (false) exit codes.
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#7> the builtin types are: > [...] > boolean: a shortcut for returning a number (as numbers are booleans). Can someone explain? I can understand booleans being numbers (e.g. #define TRUE 1 in C), but how are numbers booleans in bash?
Booleans in shell scripts are little more than zero (true) and non-zero (false) exit codes.
Ok, right. But then it should still say either "booleans are just numbers" or "numbers can be interpreted as booleans, i.e. are truthy or falsy".
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#8Since no one has said it yet, please always use https://www.shellcheck.net/ on your scripts, you don't want to be That Guy https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#9Since no one has said it yet, please always use https://www.shellcheck.net/ on your scripts, you don't want to be That Guy https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671
Oh I do love reading those... Shame that shell scripting is still treated as mysterious command line voodoo, even Microsoft has Powershell now showing how powerful the concept is that even they couldn't avoid it entirely
Re: Type-ish – A runtime type checker for bash, in bash
#10Since no one has said it yet, please always use https://www.shellcheck.net/ on your scripts, you don't want to be That Guy https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671
Ah, wow. I like that they ported the accidental behavior deliberately into Windows:
Warning: The uninstallation process deletes the folder Steam was installed to to ensure it is fully uninstalled. If you accidentally installed Steam to a folder containing other data, for example C:\Program Files (x86)\ instead of C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\..."