` Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
2011-08-08, 13:55(-07), Linda Walsh:
[...]
and both 'exit' and 'return' should return error "ERANGE" if "--posix" is
set, and -1 is given. Iinvalid option doesn't make as much sense, in
this situtation, if it was -k or -m, sure...but in this case, it's a fact
th
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> People sometimes read the POSIX standard today and think it is a
> design document. Let me correct that misunderstanding. It is not.
> POSIX is an operating system non-proliferation treaty.
Love it!
jon.
2011-08-08, 13:55(-07), Linda Walsh:
[...]
> and both 'exit' and 'return' should return error "ERANGE" if "--posix" is
> set, and -1 is given. Iinvalid option doesn't make as much sense, in
> this situtation, if it was -k or -m, sure...but in this case, it's a fact
> that --posix artificially limi
On 8/9/11 8:53 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/08/2011 08:14 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 8/8/11 9:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 08, 2011 21:20:29 Chet Ramey wrote:
On 8/8/11 8:53 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> However, you are on to something - since bash allows 'exit -1' as an
On 08/08/2011 08:14 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 8/8/11 9:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday, August 08, 2011 21:20:29 Chet Ramey wrote:
On 8/8/11 8:53 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
However, you are on to something - since bash allows 'exit -1' as an
extension, it should similarly allow 'return -1' as
Chet Ramey wrote:
Sure. It's just removing the three lines of code that were added
between bash-3.2 and bash-4.0. The question was always whether that's
the right thing to do, and whether the result will behave as Posix
requires.
That explains why I never ran into this before!
On 8/8/11 9:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, August 08, 2011 21:20:29 Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 8/8/11 8:53 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> However, you are on to something - since bash allows 'exit -1' as an
>>> extension, it should similarly allow 'return -1' as the same sort of
>>> extension.
On Monday, August 08, 2011 21:20:29 Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 8/8/11 8:53 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > However, you are on to something - since bash allows 'exit -1' as an
> > extension, it should similarly allow 'return -1' as the same sort of
> > extension. The fact that bash accepts 'exit -1' and 'ex
On 8/8/11 8:53 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> However, you are on to something - since bash allows 'exit -1' as an
> extension, it should similarly allow 'return -1' as the same sort of
> extension. The fact that bash accepts 'exit -1' and 'exit -- -1', but only
> 'return -- -1', is the real point that
Bob Proulx wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
Exit codes should be in the range 0-255.
---
I suppose you don't realize that 'should' is a subjective opinion that
sometimes has little to do with objective reality.
Sigh. Okay. Keep in mind that turn about is fair play. Yo
Eric Blake wrote:
(exit -1); return
That's not portable, either. exit is allowed to reject -1 as invalid.
POSIX is clear that exit and return have the same constraints - if an
argument is provided, it must be 0-255 to be portable.
However, you are on to something - since bash allows 'exi
On 08/07/2011 02:35 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/05/2011 05:41 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Seem to fail on any negative number, but 'exit status' is defined
as a short int -- not an unsigned value (i.e. -1 would return 255).
In bash, 'return -- -1' sets $? to 255 (note the --).
Chet Ramey wrote:
On 8/7/11 6:03 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Bash itself is inconsistent in that it accepts exit values the same as
every other
program, but limits return values to a particular subset.
Bash accepts any value you want to give to `return' and strips it to
8 bits, as the standard all
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >Exit codes should be in the range 0-255.
> ---
> I suppose you don't realize that 'should' is a subjective opinion that
> sometimes has little to do with objective reality.
Sigh. Okay. Keep in mind that turn about is fair play. You are
giving it t
On 8/7/11 6:03 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Bash itself is inconsistent in that it accepts exit values the same as
> every other
> program, but limits return values to a particular subset.
Bash accepts any value you want to give to `return' and strips it to
8 bits, as the standard allows. Read the e
On 8/7/11 4:35 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> ---
> How about portable code using:
>
> (exit -1); return
return $(( -1 & 255 ))
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRUc...@case.eduh
Bob Proulx wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
How about portable code using:
(exit -1); return
It's ugly, but would seem to be the portable/official way to
do this.
Exit codes should be in the range 0-255.
---
I suppose you don't realize that 'should' is a subjectiv
Linda Walsh wrote:
> How about portable code using:
>
> (exit -1); return
>
> It's ugly, but would seem to be the portable/official way to
> do this.
Exit codes should be in the range 0-255.
Bob
Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/05/2011 05:41 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Seem to fail on any negative number, but 'exit status' is defined
as a short int -- not an unsigned value (i.e. -1 would return 255).
In bash, 'return -- -1' sets $? to 255 (note the --). But since that is
already an extension (P
Linda Walsh wrote:
Seem to fail on any negative number, but 'exit status' is defined
as a short int -- not an unsigned value (i.e. -1 would return 255).
Bob Proulx wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
I guess I don't use negative return codes that often in shell, but
I use them a
return (and exit) returns an exit code between 0 and 255. Zero means
true and anything else means false
If you want a function to "return" a value, use printf or echo.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
>
> I guess I don't use negative return codes that often in shell, but
>
Eric Blake wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
> >I guess I don't use negative return codes that often in shell, but
> >I use them as exit codes reasonably often.
For all of the reasons Eric mentioned you won't ever actually be able
to see a negative result of an exit code however.
> >'return' barfs on "
On 08/05/2011 05:41 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
I guess I don't use negative return codes that often in shell, but
I use them as exit codes reasonably often.
'return' barfs on "return -1"...
Since return is defined to take no options, and ONLY an integer,
as the return code, it shouldn't be hard to
23 matches
Mail list logo
