On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:52:40PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:31:24 -0500 > Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: > > > On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > >>>>>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > > > >>> What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at > > >>> 'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff? > > > > > >> It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, > > >> so we can bail out early. > > > > > > How can you tell that this behaviour won't be changed in a future > > > bash version? > > > > > > > Who's to say that in the future my computer won't be made out of > > delicious ice cream, eliminating the need for EAPIs entirely? > > > > Chances are, this would break thousands of scripts, so we hope they > > wouldn't do it. If it does happen, we either deal with it then, or > > don't upgrade to that version of bash -- the same as we would do with > > any other massive breaking change. > > Thousands of scripts? So... you're saying that people actually use > thousands of scripts which have invalid syntax...
Just a note; you need to look into how aliases work. That right there unfortunately means bash isn't going to pre-parse, not as long as aliases are supported. Back to your arguing... ~brian
