Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:46:56 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> Cc: fewtch@serv.net, freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Latest discoveries... Message-ID: <19980623094656.44285@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <199806230006.RAA00408@pau-amma.whistle.com>; from David Wolfskill on Jun 06, 1998 at 05:06:53PM -0700 References: <199806230006.RAA00408@pau-amma.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 06, 1998 at 05:06:53PM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote: > [ ... ] > > "&&" would be used for a situation where the command to the (immediate) > right of the separator should be executed after the left-hand command > has terminated with a zero return code. If the left-hand command > terminates with a non-zero return code, the right-hand command will not > be executed. > > [ ... ] > > FAIR WARNING: Not all commands are well-behaved with respect to > terminating with return codes that are useful for this type of thing. > It is usual for different commands to be implemented by different (sets > of) people for different reasons with different goals. If you are in > doubt, test first... and check the documentation, as well, so that even Yes, I'm aware of the boolean shortcircuit/linking operators, but the above paragraph is why I tend to shy away from them. I regularly use a mixture of at least 4 unix systems (Sequent, Sun, FreeBSD, HPUX), and the return codes are not exactly what I would call uniform across the various systems. My fingers tend to go faster than my brain, so sometimes I would rattle off a command and then thwap <return> before a slow signal reached my fingers: "NO, not on _this_ system, you dolt!" Sigh. Just call me paranoid. And this probably isn't a -newbie topic either. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980623094656.44285>