Hi all, On Sunday, December 16, 2018 11:01 PM, Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: > | The chance of this happening in the future, when it has not happened > | so far, is vanishingly small. > > I agree that it would be very rare, which is exactly why now, it doesn't > really matter which way it gets defined. But I'm sue you've run into > users who just love to push the envelope and do the wierdest things, > which no-one had ever attempted before - having good, clear, definitions > helps avoid problems in those cases. > > | We'll see how it goes. It took a #define and three lines of code. > > Great, thanks, and yes, that's just about the same as it took me .. define > a new flag, set it appropriately (from pipefail) when creating the job, and > then use that rather than the pipefail opt value when collecting the status. > > Boringly simple, and, as above, really unlikely to bother any current users, > and makes for a much more predictable outcome when someone does decide > to do something bizarre. > > kre
I'd like to bump this thread: are there any news about this? I think leaving this unspecified is reasonable, at least as a first step. If not, has anybody a list of shells we need to update to comply with the new desired behaviour? Maybe someone already talked about this on the bash mailing list? Thanks, -- Simon Ser https://emersion.fr
