On 10/8/15 2:36 PM, Christoph Gysin wrote: >> I think you're overlooking what I referred to above: that the exit status >> of a command substitution doesn't have any effect on whether the parent's >> command succeeds or fails except in one case: the right-hand-side of an >> assignment statement that is the last assignment in a command consisting >> only of assignment statements. To say that it `disables the whole point >> of set -e' is a considerable overstatement. > > Well, I do see your point. But my understanding was that if I wanted > to run all my bash code with set -e error checking, I can do so by > avoiding a couple of corner cases, namely:
There are many more cases where the setting of -e has no effect. We discussed this extensively on the posix mailing list a few years ago, and the result of that discussion is at http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=52 For example, even if you attempt to enable -e in a shell function, it will have no effect if you run it as the command after `if'. It seems like you're restricting the discussion to simple commands only, and only to those commands that contain command subsitutions. I think this is what Greg is talking about. I will consider adding an option to change the behavior of command substitution inheriting the -e option, since there doesn't seem to be any way to decouple this behavior from posix mode. -- ``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/
