On 8/13/15 1:35 AM, isabella parakiss wrote:
> On 8/13/15, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Like it or not, it is the historical behavior standardized by POSIX. It
>> is NOT intuitive, and our advice is "DON'T USE set -e - IT WON'T DO WHAT
>> YOU WANT". We can't change the behavior, because it would break scripts
>> that rely on the POSIX-specified behavior.
>>
> POSIX didn't say anything about shopt set-e-that-actually-makes-sense.
Sure, all it needs is a specification with the same rigor as Posix's.
There have been a couple of attempts to do that so far, but they haven't
been articulated well enough to differentiate from set -e or to
implement. I encourage folks to take another shot at specifying their
requirements for something `that actually makes sense', and `not sucking'
isn't sufficient.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
