On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:33 PM Elijah Newren <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Jeff King <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Another option is to not enable this slightly-more-dangerous linting by
> > default. But that would probably rob it of its usefulness, since it
> > would just fall to some brave soul to later crank up the linting and fix
> > everybody else's mistakes.
>
> This may be a dumb question, but why can't we run under errexit? If
> we could do that, we wouldn't need the &&-chaining, and bash would
> parse the shell for us and exit whenever one command failed. (Is the
> reason for this documented somewhere? I couldn't find it...)
I'm not sure if it's documented anywhere, but it has been discussed.
In particular, see [1], especially [2], and [3]. Peff summed up by
saying:
So I dunno. I think "set -e" is kind of a dangerous lure. It works
so well _most_ of the time that you start to rely on it, but it
really does have some funny corner cases (even on modern shells,
and for all I know, the behavior above is mandated by POSIX).
[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/
[2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/
[3]: https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/
