On 02/08/2012 04:31 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
More people need to stop being part of the problem and realize that
just because some people say things that don't appear to be pleasant,
doesn't mean they are not true -- they may simply lack the ability to
dissemble as well as others --
Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/30/2012 02:27 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
As Eric said, the other parts of the Posix description make it clear that
the `ignoring set -e' status is inherited by subshells.
The original POSIX standard made this clear -- in that
it was only a
On 2/8/12 6:31 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Adhering to orders that are wrong, because it's the 'standard', didn't
work for
Nazi officers, some excuse for not using their brain an realizing theA
'rules' or standard as stated IS wrong.
I note another instance of proof of Godwin's Law.
Please note, I didn't compare anyone or their actions to those of Nazi's,
I used them as a historically famous example of someone who claimed to only
be following 'orders', (or the rules, or the standardwhatever!)... and in
a world court, it was deemed that such excuses were not a valid
On 2/8/12 9:28 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Please note, I didn't compare anyone or their actions to those of Nazi's,
This discussion has gone on for a long time; the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis hit 1; ipso facto, Godwin's Law holds.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to
Chet Ramey wrote:
On 2/8/12 9:28 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Please note, I didn't compare anyone or their actions to those of Nazi's,
This discussion has gone on for a long time; the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis hit 1; ipso facto, Godwin's Law holds.
But that would be
Chet Ramey wrote:
As Eric said, the other parts of the Posix description make it clear that
the `ignoring set -e' status is inherited by subshells.
The original POSIX standard made this clear -- in that
it was only a failure of a 'simple' command that resulted' in
an err-exit'.
On 01/30/2012 02:27 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
As Eric said, the other parts of the Posix description make it clear that
the `ignoring set -e' status is inherited by subshells.
The original POSIX standard made this clear -- in that
it was only a failure of a
On 01/24/2012 02:53 AM, Jim Avera wrote:
Description:
set -e in (subshells) should be independent of surrounding context.
The man page says [set -e] applies to the shell environment and
each subshell environment separately,
but actually set -e is prevented from working in a (subshell) if it
On 1/24/12 4:53 AM, Jim Avera wrote:
Bash Version: 4.2
Patch Level: 10
Release Status: release
Description:
set -e in (subshells) should be independent of surrounding context.
The man page says [set -e] applies to the shell environment and
each subshell environment separately,
but
I'm noticing a difference in behavior between Solaris 9's sh and GNU
bash, and was wondering if this is a bug or a feature.
It's a POSIX requirement.
Using GNU bash, version 3.00.16(1)-release (i386-redhat-linux-gnu).
This command:
bash -exc 'for x in a b c; do ( false ); echo status
Jon Salz wrote:
I'm noticing a difference in behavior between Solaris 9's sh and GNU
bash, and was wondering if this is a bug or a feature.
I believe Solaris' sh is the Bourne shell. I am told that to get a
POSIX shell on Solaris you would need to invoke /usr/XPG4/bin/sh. Can
you try your
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 21:39 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Jon Salz wrote:
I'm noticing a difference in behavior between Solaris 9's sh and GNU
bash, and was wondering if this is a bug or a feature.
I believe Solaris' sh is the Bourne shell. I am told that to get a
POSIX shell on Solaris you
13 matches
Mail list logo
