On Mon Mar 04 08:33:55 2013, masak wrote:
> <masak> I should probably use &shell instead of &run in my program, but...
> <masak> ...when I use &run, there's no indication at all that things
> go wrong. no error. nothing.
> <masak> like 'run("echo hi")'
> <masak> "On failure to execute, the routines C<fail()>." -- so, since
> I use &run in sink context, it should blow up, right?
> * masak submits rakudobug
>
> $ nom -e 'say run("this command cannot possibly succeed").WHAT'
> Int+{<anon>}()
> $ nom -e 'say +run("this command cannot possibly succeed")'
> 255
> $ nom -e 'say ?run("this command cannot possibly succeed")'
> False
>
> Yeah, yeah, it's an Int with Bool tendencies. Cute. But this goes
> against the above sentence from S29.
Today, run and shell always return a Proc, whose exitcode property indicates
success or failure. In sink context, an unsuccessful Proc will now throw an
exception. Design docs updated to indicate this, and tests cover it in
S29-os/system.t.
/jnthn
