On 6/1/20 6:28 AM, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 22:46:48 -0400 > From: Eli Schwartz <eschwa...@archlinux.org> > Message-ID: <5a7df0ba-3ad1-1f35-1107-09fdd5950...@archlinux.org> > > While I generally agree with ... > > | Don't use errexit > > but not really with: > > | it does not mean what you think it does. > > (it does mean what I think it means ...)
(I think shell developers are exempt from this generalization. :p) > in this case: > > | You're merely the latest person to discover that this applies to you: > | http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105 > > doesn't really apply - the cases reported are simply bugs in bash, > a shell implementing -e correctly should exit as it was expected to. > > This all results from earlier posix specs where -e and simple commands > were linked - the wording has been improved (still short of perfect) > and simple commands are no longer relevant (other than that exit status > generally originates with the result from a simple command). As I am a poor user, I could not figure out whether the grammar allowed or forbade this this result. So this is actually that unbelievable of unbelievables, a script which is broken because of set -e and it's actually because set -e has a bug? Thanks for clarifying. -- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
