Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:43:43 +0400 (MSD) From: Andrey Alekseyev <uitm@zenon.net> To: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: minor annoyances Message-ID: <200208210643.g7L6hhr23559@uitm.zenon.net> In-Reply-To: <20020821003840.GA18202@HAL9000.homeunix.com> from David Schultz at "Aug 20, 2002 05:38:40 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What were you expecting this to do? The && operator conditionally > executes its right operand depending on the return value of its > left operand. But if you run a task in the background, there is > no immediate return value to speak of. The '& &&' construct only > makes sense if you have a shell with magical predictive powers to > correctly guess a program's return code before it finishes. While > ash doesn't have those, I understand that this is one of the many > new features planned for the next version of bash. Well, shame on me. I always thought it works just like (aaa &) && bbb which has the right effect. So I assume, that was a parsing bug fixed which previously had been allowing the incorrect notation. Back to fix my scripts (fortunately I wasn't using that bad syntax much:) -- Andrey Alekseyev. Zenon N.S.P. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208210643.g7L6hhr23559>