On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Jilles Tjoelker <jil...@freebsd.org> wrote: > Author: jilles > Date: Sun Aug 22 11:04:30 2010 > New Revision: 211609 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/211609 > > Log: > sh: Add a test for breaking from a loop outside the current function. > > It is unwise to rely on this but I'd like to know if this would break. > > Added: > head/tools/regression/bin/sh/builtins/break3.0 (contents, props changed) > > Added: head/tools/regression/bin/sh/builtins/break3.0 > ============================================================================== > --- /dev/null 00:00:00 1970 (empty, because file is newly added) > +++ head/tools/regression/bin/sh/builtins/break3.0 Sun Aug 22 11:04:30 > 2010 (r211609) > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > +# $FreeBSD$ > + > +# We accept this and people might rely on it. > +# However, various other shells do not accept it. > + > +f() { > + break > + echo bad1 > +} > + > +while :; do > + f > + echo bad2 > + exit 2 > +done
This feature should be counted as a bug IMHO. How can f() possibly know whether
there's a surrounding context to break from?
Having said that, this behaviour is the same in bash except that bash will
complain if
it's asked to break when the context is wrong, perhaps we should complain too?
$ bash -c 'f() { break; echo no break; }; for f in good bad; do echo $f; f;
done'
good
$ sh -c 'f() { break; echo no break; }; for f in good bad; do echo $f; f; done'
good
$ bash -c 'f() { break; echo no break; }; f'
bash: line 0: break: only meaningful in a `for', `while', or `until' loop
no break
$ bash -c 'f() { break 2>/dev/null; echo no break; }; f'
no break
$ sh -c 'f() { break; echo no break; }; f'
no break
--
Brian Somers <br...@awfulhak.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <br...@freebsd.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
