On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:35:30AM +0000, Johannes Sixt wrote:
quoted text
> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:53:36AM +0000, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >>Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >>>+say_color () {
> >>>+	[ "$nocolor" =3D 0 ] &&  [ "" !=3D '-1' ] && tput setaf ""
> >>>+	shift
> >>>+	echo "* $*"
> >>>+	tput op
> >>>+}
> >>What if tput is not available, like on Windows? How about this (at the=
=20
quoted text
> >>end of the file, so it can obey --no-color):
> >  I answered to it already in my first mail: if tput isn't available,
> >the command fails, and $? is non 0. and nocolor is set. Or color isn't
> >set to 't' for your proposal.
>=20
> I was too terse, sorry. I wanted to point out that if tput is not=20
> available, the second invocation will leave "tput: command not found"=20
> behind on stderr. Therefore, I proposed to make the definition of=20
> say_color() different depending on whether $color is set or not. Then you=
=20
quoted text
> don't need to test for $color twice inside the function.

  Right we can do that. I'll try to rework the patch. and no it
shouldn't leave tput: command not found as I 2>/dev/null and I think the
shell doesn't print that in that case. At least my zsh doesn't.

--=20
=C2=B7O=C2=B7  Pierre Habouzit
=C2=B7=C2=B7O                                                madcoder@debia=
n.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org