On 09/11/2012 09:24 AM, Марк Коренберг wrote: >> This behavior conforms to POSIX. >> >>> >>> Is any way to force "set -e" to work even in such cases? >> >> No, it is already working as specified (just not the way you want). >>
> 1. Can you give me link (or name of) posix standard where I can read about > this? POSIX 2008 Technical Corrigendum 1 is not quite out yet (still in balloting, but will be finalized later this year), but it will include this wording: http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=52 > 2. Is there any workaround (like shopt) that will help for such case? I > have read all shopts, man bash and found nothing. There's nothing to work around. 'set -e' is behaving as required by POSIX, which just happens to be a different behavior than what you want. There is no option in bash to get the behavior you want, unfortunately. > > If it is the POSIX standard, this mean that I can not check return value of > custom function at all, as this implies disabling of "set -e" inside > functions bodies. It doesn't disable 'set -e' inside ALL function bodies, but only inside function bodies where the function call appears inside a context where 'set -e' is ignored (such as in the condition of 'if'). It's non-intuitive, and therefore my advice is to never rely on 'set -e'. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
