> Chet can give the definitive answer, but my take is that it's a huge > surprise to someone writing a function independent of the script, or > using a function that was written independently of the script. If the > function does not expect set -e to be in effect (which is not the default, > and is not done in any sane environment, so why would anyone EXPECT it?) > then it may have been written to work in a normal environment, and will > fail in a set -e environment.
Yes, obviously you can't just source other bash files and assume they work with set -e (or set -u for that matter). But if I do I still have the option of consciously disabling said options with set +e. > I have many examples of commands that surprisingly explode and set your > house on fire when run in a set -e environment, but which work perfectly > well in a regular environment. See http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105 Thanks for that excellent resource! Maybe I spent too much time with bash scripts, but I'm already aware of all those corner cases. Yes they are not pretty, but for each of them there is a simple workaround. Tools like shellcheck will even warn you about some of them. The behaviour I describe seems to fall in a different category though. Switching to posix mode has all kinds of other side effects, so I don't think that's a valid workaround. And it seems that the code to inherit set -e is already there, just not enabled by default. This seems to cause behaviour that is counter-intuitive IMO. Chris
