News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on G()('al').

Re:G()('al') by csandreasen on Saturday July 26, 2014 @11:58PM (#8091915)
I'm pretty sure this is cheating, but...

  #!/bin/sh
  grep -e "g\(()\)*('al')" $0 | sed 's/()/o/g' | sed "s/('al')/al/"
  exit
  g()('al')
On its own, g()('al') is valid but g()()('al') is a syntax error. Also, bash and sh don't have non-numeric return values, so regardless of the solution you're stuck with printing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:G()('al') by eatnumber1 on Sunday July 27, 2014 @12:02AM (#8091922)
This is a great incomplete solution. Can you submit a pull-request for it?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:G()('al') by csandreasen on Sunday July 27, 2014 @12:06AM (#8091928)
Just to clarify, I think it's a non-solution because the g()('al') is never actually executed - grep does all the work. You can add as many parenthesis as you want. The "exit" is there because you'll get a syntax error if you try to execute g()()('al'). g()('al') by itself does nothing (I'm not even sure why it's not flagged as a syntax error).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:G()('al') by eatnumber1 on Sunday July 27, 2014 @12:09AM (#8091934)
The three people who are judging this had a long discussion over this case, and basically decided that since it is in the file, it's fine. We frown on it a little because it's basically self-modifying code, but it's better than nothing for bash.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:G()('al') by tolmasky on Sunday July 27, 2014 @12:30AM (#8091988)
I actually prefer it vs. frowning on it for the record ;)
[ Parent | on HN ]