tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Next steps for /bin/sh

On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 19:59:32 +0700
Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:

> if I am understanding correctly, that while executing a function, if
> "set -e" is in effect, and a command is executed in a fashion where
> the rules do not cause set -e to be ignored, then the function should
> return a failure status immediately, and execute no more (of its)
> commands.  

To confirm: yes, exactly.  

> It would actually be wrong of the standard to specify something that
> no-one implements - that is not what a standard is (it is not
> legislation.)

Quite so, although it's my understanding Posix has invented things
from time to time.  stdlib.h comes to mind.  

Sometimes, as you say, the standard is a muddle because implementations
are a muddle.  That's why I think of it as a lightlhouse: steer by it,
not at it.  If the approach becomes treacherous, steer away.  ;-)  


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index