Il giorno lun 23 ago 2021 alle ore 10:45 Harald van Dijk <[email protected]> ha scritto:
> On 23/08/2021 09:16, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > IMHO, syntax error should be an exit condition either. > > I would not have a problem with you changing the shell to ensure syntax > errors always terminate (though I cannot speak for others), but the > problem is not limited to syntax errors, so that is not enough to fix > the problem. > > > For the moment we can still assume that in busybox all exceptions are > > deadly. > > I do not understand this, not even with your followup e-mail. You > changed my test in which the syntax error is non-fatal to one where the > syntax error is fatal, and then conclude from that that you can assume > syntax errors are always fatal? That does not work. If you have two > tests with syntax errors, where the syntax errors are fatal in only one > of them, that means you can *not* assume all syntax errors are fatal, > and can *not* assume all exceptions are deadly. > Hi Harald, we need to synchronise each other a bit. Step by step, I will try to be clearer. > I would not have a problem with you changing the shell to ensure syntax I did NOT changed anything, it is in such a way even in the original busybox. AFAIK. In the original busybox there is no trap ERR so I cannot try but I did not changed that. > You changed my test in which the syntax error is non-fatal to one where the syntax error is fatal I did not changed anything about the fatal trap. The trap you submitted is non-fatal in bash but fatal in busybox ash. You suggested this trap ")" ERR; false (command eval false -> false) I did the same. PLEASE: confirm me we are aligned on this before I go to explain myself better on (isdeadly(e)) Thank you, -- Roberto A. Foglietta +39.349.33.30.697
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
