Yes, I did expected such an answer of using a subshell, and yes I can get the return value, but I don need it. I need the output fed into another (maybe local) variable. I was under the impression that BASH was modeled after 'C', so I started using the functions as such. My mistake. I have the confirmation that it's not so strait forward as I expected. Never mind, I now know better, so thanks for the comment anyway.
KR, Frans de Boer (NL). On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 18:56 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Frans de Boer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Okay, the function tries to alter the global var1 integer. But, the > > result is that var1 is NOT changed. > > Yes, because the function is executed in a subshell. > > > So, the result of the first echo > > will be 0 > > However, the next echo displays the changed var1 as being 1. At the > > expense of losing the return value. > > You are not using the return value of the function but its output. The > return value of a function is the exit status of the last executed > command, and can also be set with return. The return value is available > in $?. > > Andreas. > _______________________________________________ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
