Original Message
>From: Igor Pechtchanski
>Sent: 06 July 2005 16:36
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> Igor Pechtchanski cs.nyu.edu> writes:
Because it's in a for loop, and when the first file fails but second
succeeds, you still want the overall command to exit with
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Eric Blake wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> > > Because it's in a for loop, and when the first file fails but second
> > > succeeds, you still want the overall command to exit with failure.
> >
> > That's the correct intent, but shouldn't it be &&= instead of &
Original Message
>From: Eric Blake
>Sent: 06 July 2005 15:19
>
> But I hate thinking in negative logic, hence my definition of cygcheck to
> return true on success.]
Mneh. I don't like boolean success-fail return values full stop. They
convey too little information and then need to
Igor Pechtchanski cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> > Because it's in a for loop, and when the first file fails but second
> > succeeds, you still want the overall command to exit with failure.
>
> That's the correct intent, but shouldn't it be &&= instead of &=,
> technically?
There's no such thing as &&=.
Original Message
>From: Igor Pechtchanski
>Sent: 06 July 2005 15:02
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:49:06PM +, Eric Blake wrote:
-1677,7 +1681,7 main (int argc, char **argv)
>>>
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Eric Blake wrote:
> Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes:
>
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:49:06PM +, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > -1677,7 +1681,7 main (int argc, char **argv)
> > > {
> > >if (i)
> > > puts ("");
> > >- cygcheck (argv[
