On Tue, Jul 5, 2022, at 6:34 PM, Yair Lenga wrote:
> I probably did not described the intended behavior clearly. I believe
> both cases should behave identical under errfail. The loop will ‘break’
> on the first iteration (false when word = a). Same for the all looping
> commands. I believe this is consistent with if-then-else-if, when an
> error in the then or else block will result in terminating (‘breaking’)
> the if.
It's only consistent if your notion of consistency is "terminate
all compound commands immediately". This kind of works for "if"
but changes "for" and "while" in a very fundamental way. Your
initial description of "treat a; b; c like a && b && c" implies
that
if condition; then a; b; c; fi
should behave like
if condition; then a && b && c; fi
and
for word in words; do a; b; c; done
should behave like
for word in words; do a && b && c; done
but it turns out what you apparently want is
for word in words; do a && b && c || ! break; done
which is a larger change than you let on.
--
vq
