>> _As an aside_, I noticed there are many script aficionados >> among (B)LFS users and I suppose the "&&" concept in the >> book instructions helps them a lot. >> (command1 && >> command2 && >> ...) >> I am one of (or maybe unique among) the people what like to take >> their time between commands (and append "; echo $?" at the end).
Just to elaborate on some of the comments in this thread: The && (logical AND) syntax carries with it an implicit condition -- subsequent commands are executed only if previous commands exit successfully. So in something like "FOO && BAR", if FOO returns an exit status of zero, then it was successful and BAR will then execute; otherwise FOO was not successful and BAR will not execute. Any error messages will be related to why FOO was not successful. The ; (semicolon) syntax does not imply any checks on command exit status. Commands are simply executed in sequence, regardless of the exit status of a previous command (which explains why, in the quoted comment, the echo command always executes). So the difference between the two styles in general seems to be whether a less experienced user will be able to recognize which command in the list failed. Executing commands one at a time is the most direct way to validate their exit status. Using lists of commands AND'ed together is more convenient, but may take a practiced eye to recognize which command failed. Again, a difference in style. Both get the job done. So there's not much reason to fuss too much. O wait ... ~rick -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
