[tex-live] Comment on Re: TeXLive-CD/DVD (Installation)

[David Kastrup]

Oliver Bandel <oliver at first.in-berlin.de> writes:

> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 12:23:11PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Oliver Bandel <oliver at first.in-berlin.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:20:04AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> >
>> > OK, quoting mechanisms; but this is mostly ugly stuff, especially if
>> > the things to do get nested.
>> > A scripting language will be better to use then.
>> 
>> A shell _is_ a scripting language, and you will _always_ need quotes
>> for strings.
>> 
>> >> > So, we need to invent at least one shell, that does not have a
>> >> > problem with such names.
>> >> 
>> >> None of them do.  You just need to do the stuff correctly, as in
>> >> "write a correct [installer] for *x which is surprisingly hard to do".
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > But it's hard to do, because the tools in use make it hard.
>> 
>> Nonsense.  The shell does not make it hard to work with quoted
>> strings.  It _additionally_ provides ways to work with _unquoted_
>> strings, and then you need to know what you are doing.
>> 
>> If you don't, that is not the fault of the tool.
>
>
> OK, if you want/like the quoting-theatre, use shells.

There is _no_ tool where you can use unquoted strings for everything.
There is _no_ tool that has no "quoting-theatre" for strings.

> I dislike it, and so I mostly try to avoid shells.

That's basically superstition.  Every tool has quoting mechanisms.

-- 
David Kastrup