Freek de Kruijf <f.de.kru...@beelaertsict.nl> writes: > Indeed the && before continue should have acted as ; I did not realize up > could return a status 1 and not execute continue. Inserting "return 0" at the > end of up solves the problem.
It seems to me that it would be a better solution to replace "up && continue" with the more expected "up ; continue" or the equivalent "up [newline] continue", rather than changing with the definition of "up". Dale
