Given the warning about capitalization, the best possible case is that they’re using ast.literal_eval() rather than throwing untrusted input into eval().
Err, I guess they might be comparing strings to ‘True’ and are choosing to be really strict about capitalization for some reason.
My knife is printf, but my scalpel is gdb.
I honestly think autocorrecting your scripts would do more harm than good. ShellCheck tells you about potential issues, but It’s up to you to determine the correct behavior.
For example, how could it know whether cat $foo should be cat "$foo", or whether the script actually relies on word splitting? It’s possible that $foo intentionally contains multiple paths.
Maybe there are autofixable errors I’m not thinking of.
FYI, it’s possible to gradually adopt ShellCheck by setting --severity=error and working your way down to warnings and so on. Alternatively, you can add one-off #shellcheck ignore SC1234 comments before offending lines to silence warnings.
PSA: Run ShellCheck on your shell scripts. It turns up a shocking number of programming errors. https://www.shellcheck.net/
It is pronounced like “curl” though!
We pronounce curl with an initial k sound. It rhymes with words like girl and earl. This is a short WAV file to help you:
You wouldn’t download… a vinyl record…
Thank you for honoring the ancient memes. I pray that Katy, t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m, accepts this offering.
This stupid antique computer is the reason my iOS keyboard autocorrects “emacs” to “eMacs”
Is this a joke about bugs?
Relevant reading: https://justine.lol/lambda/
Wtf, why would you put the third cat at risk like that? You already had ample evidence that the name is cursed!
Take a look at all the struct definition. It’s a pure virtual method of 🍴 with a bunch of overrides in the structs that inherit from 🍴.
Yeah, there really should be some expectation of stewardship in exchange for absurd post-Disney copyright durations.
Actually I would like to read that. Might be worth the risk?
You’re coming dangerously close to setting Rufus free. I have a feeling you’re about to be visited by a time traveler with a dire warning if you keep trying this.
The code is speaking to me, but it’s just word salad.
Am I being dense? I don’t get it.
I don’t understand any of these analogies at all
For practical purposes, it’s probably good enough. You could write a program to check whether it’s non-repeating up to N digits, so just set N high enough that it will last you for a few thousand releases…
Are you arguing that assembly languages are not architecture-specific? I don’t think that’s the typical definition.
Nasm is an assembler, but it also represents a specific assembly language targeting x86 architectures.
Gas is an assembler of a higher order. It can emit code for many architectures, and thus it accepts many different architecture-specific assembly languages.