Re: set -e again

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

> I discovered the following today.

> [...sh set -e oddity...]

> Furthermore, all the shells I have in easy reach agree on it.

So do 5.2's and even 1.4T's sh.

I also tried changing

	echo foo

to

	echo "foo $-"

to see if perhaps -e was getting turned off inside the function.
Apparently not; I get "foo e" regardless of whether f's return is
checked or not.

Also, interestingly, adding the three lines "local -", "set +e", and
"set -e" to the beginning of f() does not change this.

> This seems wrong

I concur, especially since I too have been unable to find any way to
get the effect of set -e within f when f is the LHS of ||.  { }
doesn't help.  Neither does ( ).  Neither does setting -e after
defining f.  Neither does setting e only within f, not in the main
script (!!).  (These tests done with 5.2's sh.)

> But also, the fact that everybody agrees makes me think it's probably
> the agreed result of the last round of POSIX wrangling over the -e
> definition some years back.

If so, *quite* some years back, in that 1.4T's sh agrees.  Unless
Bourne's own work did this and everyone else felt it necessary to
ensure compatibility.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B