Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:30:03 -0800 (PST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: freebsd-bugs Subject: Re: bin/6047: bash does not handle -e option properly Message-ID: <199803180930.BAA04312@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/6047; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To: dancy@franz.com, Studded@dal.net
Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: bin/6047: bash does not handle -e option properly
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:24:24 +1100
> What are you actually trying to accomplish here?
He's trying to to get sh fixed to work properly. Perhaps a better
example:
---
#!/bin/sh
set -e
funcfalse() {
return 1
}
for i in /usr/bin/false false funcfalse
do
if $i; then echo $i; else echo not $i; fi
done
---
This handles funcfalse different from the other falses. /bin/sh apparently
exits for `return 1' when -e is set. The correctness of this for a POSIX
shhell depends on whether `return' is a simple command. I don't think it
is. This examples shows why it shouldn't be.
The PR should not mention bash in its subject line. bash works right,
but /bin/sh doesn't.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803180930.BAA04312>