On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 19:59:32 +0700 Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote:
> if I am understanding correctly, that while executing a function, if > "set -e" is in effect, and a command is executed in a fashion where > the rules do not cause set -e to be ignored, then the function should > return a failure status immediately, and execute no more (of its) > commands. To confirm: yes, exactly. > It would actually be wrong of the standard to specify something that > no-one implements - that is not what a standard is (it is not > legislation.) Quite so, although it's my understanding Posix has invented things from time to time. stdlib.h comes to mind. Sometimes, as you say, the standard is a muddle because implementations are a muddle. That's why I think of it as a lightlhouse: steer by it, not at it. If the approach becomes treacherous, steer away. ;-) --jkl
