On 08/12/2015 09:54 PM, PRC wrote: > 1. If the function is complicated and contains lots of commands, it > would be more troublesome appending && to every command rather > than simply using one single "set -e" at the front. > 2. It is not > reasonable that suppression of '-e' is applied as well inside the > function. My intention is if my_build succeeds continue to do other > stuff. Does anyone like the rule that a function never fails only if it is > part of a > compound command?
Like it or not, it is the historical behavior standardized by POSIX. It is NOT intuitive, and our advice is "DON'T USE set -e - IT WON'T DO WHAT YOU WANT". We can't change the behavior, because it would break scripts that rely on the POSIX-specified behavior. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
