On 12/10/2010 08:49 AM, Marc Herbert wrote: >> let intentionally returns status 1 if the value was 0; and status > 1 if >> there was an error. Why? So you can do loops such as: >> >> countdown=10 >> while let countdown--; do ... ; done >> >>> Why does this happen? Is it 'by design'? >> >> Yes. The same as for 'expr' which is standardized by POSIX to have the >> same behavior. > > This is a design mistake: it trades a few characters for a lot of confusion.
It's required for 'expr'. But since 'let' is a bash extension, bash is free to change the semantics of 'let' to behave differently. However, doing so now would break backwards compatibility with existing scripts that have come to depend on this behavior, so unfortunately we're stuck with it. Remember, non-zero status is NOT always 'failure'; it is the documentation of each command that will tell you which status values imply failure. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
