Re: name of a global variable to store the result of a function

[Maroloccio]

It's probably not "useless", as it does have a "use".
It's not "ineffectual", per se.

It's likely "sub-optimal", as a more robust alternative exists.

I think this use of the word "useless" is in the tradition of:
"useless use of cat", which is akin in meaning to "unnecessary" or 
"probably best replaced with an alternative".


On 24/05/2020 15:08, Pier Paolo Grassi wrote:
> why "useless"? what is wrong about using eval?
>
> Il giorno dom 24 mag 2020 alle ore 19:51 Eli Schwartz <
> address@hidden> ha scritto:
>
> > On 5/24/20 1:39 PM, João Eiras wrote:
> > > Use whatever variable name you want.
> > > But if you want to make utility code that robust and does not depend on
> > > magic variable names, you could pass the name of the output variable as a
> > > parameter, e.g.:
> > >
> > > function do_stuff {
> > >    local varname="$1"
> > >    local result="somevalue"
> > >    eval "$varname=\"\$result\""
> > > }
> > >
> > > myresult=
> > > do_stuff myresult
> > > echo r:$myresult
> > Useless use of eval, consider printf -v or declare -g instead.
> >
> > --
> > Eli Schwartz
> > Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User