On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:01:09PM +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> Possibly HP-UX changed it? Sounds more likely than
> Solaris changing it the other way round.
>
> What version of ksh is it based on?
$ strings /bin/ksh | grep Version | tail -2
@(#)Version 11/16/88
(That command came from
htt
2016-08-23 12:26:37 -0400, Greg Wooledge:
[...]
> > ksh -c '((0)); echo X'
> >
> > outputs X
>
> You forgot the -e. Here's ksh88:
>
> $ ksh -e -c '((0)); echo X'
> $ uname -a
> HP-UX imadev B.10.20 A 9000/785 2008897791 two-user license
[...]
Oops.
I did test with -e on Solaris though
$ Vers
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 05:15:25PM +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> POSIX doesn't specify ((...)) (explicitely leaves it
> unspecified), so is out of POSIX scope anyway.
>
> It was introduced by ksh88.
>
> There and in ksh93 (but not pdksh nor zsh)
>
> ksh -c '((0)); echo X'
>
> outputs X
You
2016-08-12 14:22:32 -0400, Chet Ramey:
[...]
> The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to which
> `set -e' applies. The (( command (among others) was added to that list
> in bash-4.1. The change was the result of Posix changing the semantics
> of the errexit option and
Chet Ramey wrote:
Posix made an error in the 1992 version, in that the specification of
set -e was subtly incompatible with historical...
The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to which
`set -e' applies. The (( command (among others) was added to that list
in bash-4
On 8/21/16 8:30 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
>
>Keeping "-e" semantics in a "bo[e]rn[e]-again-shell"
> compatible with the original shell would be the smart way to
> go. POSIX changed it to be incompatible with historical
> implementations -- thus, creating a new standard (@Chet), that
> was no long
Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:15:13AM -0700, L. A. Walsh wrote:
Calculations shouldn't ever trigger "-e" except for things like
division by 0 (which doesn't trigger it, as the calculation dies
before an return value can be calculated); it's counter-intuitive.
You ma
On 8/16/16 12:16 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to
which `set -e' applies. The change was the result of Posix changing
the semantics of the errexit option and expanding its scope from simple
commands to all commands.
>
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:16:50AM -0700, L. A. Walsh wrote:
> Perhaps you can explain why bash's "normal mode" had to change?
I don't have a "why", but I do note this on
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105/Answers
See the answer for "Exercise 2".
I repeat, because it needs to be repeated ev
Chet Ramey wrote:
On 8/15/16 6:15 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to which
`set -e' applies. The change was the result of Posix changing the semantics of
the errexit option and expanding its scope from simp
On 8/15/16 6:15 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to which
>> `set -e' applies. The (( command (among others) was added to that list
>> in bash-4.1. The change was the result of Posix changing the semantics
>> of
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:15:13AM -0700, L. A. Walsh wrote:
> Calculations shouldn't ever trigger "-e" except for things like
> division by 0 (which doesn't trigger it, as the calculation dies
> before an return value can be calculated); it's counter-intuitive.
You may wish as hard as you like, b
Chet Ramey wrote:
The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to
which
`set -e' applies. The (( command (among others) was added to that list
in bash-4.1. The change was the result of Posix changing the semantics
of the errexit option and expanding its scope from simpl
On 8/12/16 4:52 AM, NO REPLY wrote:
> Bash Version: 4.3
> Patch Level: 11
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
> I have a few increment expressions used as ((level++)) and only one of
> those is giving an error. When used with set -e, bash aborts
> execution. Using ERR trap, I
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 02:22:26PM +0530, NO REPLY wrote:
> I have a few increment expressions used as ((level++)) and only one of
> those is giving an error. When used with set -e, bash aborts
> execution. Using ERR trap, I was able to identify the expression.
http://mywiki.wooledge.
15 matches
Mail list logo
