Re: set -e and subshells

On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 21:39 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Jon Salz wrote: > > I'm noticing a difference in behavior between Solaris 9's sh and GNU > > bash, and was wondering if this is a bug or a feature. > > I believe Solaris' sh is the Bourne shell. I am told that to get a > POSIX shell on Solari

Re: set -e and subshells

Jon Salz wrote: > I'm noticing a difference in behavior between Solaris 9's sh and GNU > bash, and was wondering if this is a bug or a feature. I believe Solaris' sh is the Bourne shell. I am told that to get a POSIX shell on Solaris you would need to invoke /usr/XPG4/bin/sh. Can you try your ex

set -e and subshells

I'm noticing a difference in behavior between Solaris 9's sh and GNU bash, and was wondering if this is a bug or a feature. Using GNU bash, version 3.00.16(1)-release (i386-redhat-linux-gnu). This command: bash -exc 'for x in a b c; do ( false ); echo status is $?; done' loops through three