Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11340
| From | Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | Re: -e does not take effects in subshell |
| Date | 2015-08-13 09:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.8249.1439473895.904.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
| References | <BLU176-W28809FB59FF9274B34D871D67F0@phx.gbl> <20150811135056.GD4309@eeg.ccf.org> <BLU176-W27103575D91F4EF315336FD67D0@phx.gbl> <55CC26A7.10000@redhat.com> <CAAZkfoLbzLnY1V6tXc_frY0v3e2_++Hm6ikiMxW=z3ED7xYXkQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On 8/13/15 1:35 AM, isabella parakiss wrote: > On 8/13/15, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote: >> Like it or not, it is the historical behavior standardized by POSIX. It >> is NOT intuitive, and our advice is "DON'T USE set -e - IT WON'T DO WHAT >> YOU WANT". We can't change the behavior, because it would break scripts >> that rely on the POSIX-specified behavior. >> > POSIX didn't say anything about shopt set-e-that-actually-makes-sense. Sure, all it needs is a specification with the same rigor as Posix's. There have been a couple of attempts to do that so far, but they haven't been articulated well enough to differentiate from set -e or to implement. I encourage folks to take another shot at specifying their requirements for something `that actually makes sense', and `not sucking' isn't sufficient. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: -e does not take effects in subshell Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2015-08-13 09:51 -0400
csiph-web