On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:15:16PM +0200, alex xmb ratchev wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 8:09 PM Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:33:07AM +1000, Martin D Kealey wrote: [...] > > Well in any case, the behavior you wanted is not reliable across shells, > > nor even across versions of bash. > > > > me ?
I was replying to Martin Kealey. "You" in that sentence referred to him. > i dont have interest in supporting not newest versions ... 4.4 ? uh > not my case , nor would i support it The "non-local break/continue" that Martin wanted doesn't work in 5.2 either. > > unicorn:~$ bash-4.4 foo > > 1 > > f > > foo: line 1: break: only meaningful in a `for', `while', or `until' loop > > 2 > > f > > foo: line 1: break: only meaningful in a `for', `while', or `until' loop > > 3 > > f > > foo: line 1: break: only meaningful in a `for', `while', or `until' loop unicorn:~$ bash-5.2 foo 1 f foo: line 1: break: only meaningful in a `for', `while', or `until' loop 2 f foo: line 1: break: only meaningful in a `for', `while', or `until' loop 3 f foo: line 1: break: only meaningful in a `for', `while', or `until' loop I used 4.3 and 4.4 in my demonstration because that was where the behavior changed. Everything *before* 4.3 presumably works like 4.3, and everything *after* 4.4 presumably works like 4.4, though I didn't test all the versions. Only a tiny handful. I showed exactly how I ran my demonstration, so you could have repeated it using your own bash version to see whether it supported the non-local break/continue. But I guess now you don't have to, since I just did it for you.
