On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Greg Wooledge <wool...@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 08:39:57AM +0200, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
>> But then how can I solve the problem? (How about `()` which
>> clearly is a new shell instance.)
>
> The problem being "how to use set -e in a consistent manner across all
> shells"? You can't. set -e is unpredictable, unreliable, and should be
> shunned. As you can see by the last dozen or so message on this mailing
> list, not even bash gurus (other than Chet) can figure out its semantics.
>
> Check for errors yourself on the commands that matter. That way you'll
> know what will cause termination and what won't. Yes, I know, it means
> your script is longer. But longer is better than unpredictable.
Unfortunately I'm not subscribed to this mailing list. Could you
point me to the right thread?
Thanks,
Ciprian.
P.S.: The fact that some features of Bash, mainly `set -e`, which
should be a safety-net for scripts, is "unpredictable" is not so very
reassuring... More-over the entire Linux / Unix software
infrastructure is based on Bash, from init scripts, to complex
applications (like makepkg in ArchLinux, or the installers that come
with enterprise software (Oracle, VMWare, etc.)...)
P.P.S.: Really, I'm scared now... :(
