On 9/1/21 4:59 PM, (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
"Chet Ramey via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
Given the following:
(exit 42)
a=$? b=`false` b=$?
echo $? $a $b
Bash prints 1 42 1.
The original (v7) bourne shell and the rest of the research line through v9
prints 1 1 (b is set to
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 10:59:46PM +0200, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l
> at The Open Group wrote:
> >
> > Something called SVR4.2 does not really exist. It was a minor change
> > compared
> > to SvR4 announced by Novell short before they sold the Copyright to
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 10:59:46PM +0200, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at
The Open Group wrote:
>
> Something called SVR4.2 does not really exist. It was a minor change compared
> to SvR4 announced by Novell short before they sold the Copyright to SCO.
SVR4.2 ES/MP became Unixware 2.01.
"Chet Ramey via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
> Given the following:
>
> (exit 42)
> a=$? b=`false` b=$?
>
> echo $? $a $b
>
> Bash prints 1 42 1.
>
> The original (v7) bourne shell and the rest of the research line through v9
> prints 1 1 (b is set to the empty string). That
On 9/1/21 2:23 PM, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> Date:Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:04:12 +0100
> From:Harald van Dijk
> Message-ID: <837d3b5b-ac61-98eb-2741-d667a78e2...@gigawatt.nl>
>
> | Is there any statement that overrides the general
Date:Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:04:12 +0100
From:Harald van Dijk
Message-ID: <837d3b5b-ac61-98eb-2741-d667a78e2...@gigawatt.nl>
| Is there any statement that overrides the general definition to
| explicitly make this unspecified? If not, the general definition applies
On 01/09/2021 18:48, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Date:Wed, 1 Sep 2021 16:38:00 +0300
From:"=?UTF-8?B?T8SfdXo=?= via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID:
| true
| a=$? b=`exit 1` b=$? >`echo /dev/null; exit 2`
|
1 Eylül 2021 Çarşamba tarihinde Robert Elz yazdı:
> Date:Wed, 1 Sep 2021 16:38:00 +0300
> From:"=?UTF-8?B?T8SfdXo=?= via austin-group-l at The Open
> Group"
> Message-ID: qvsysq5nfzfxetr7yeq...@mail.gmail.com>
>
> | true
> | a=$? b=`exit 1` b=$? >`echo
Date:Wed, 1 Sep 2021 16:38:00 +0300
From:"=?UTF-8?B?T8SfdXo=?= via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID:
| true
| a=$? b=`exit 1` b=$? >`echo /dev/null; exit 2`
| echo $? $a $b
| Now, I wonder, what did I miss?
That $? (the exit status) is
On 01/09/2021 17:22, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 01 Sep 2021:
The second problem is the redirection. Based on the above, command
substitutions in a redirection are supposed to affect the exit status just
as any other command substitution,
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 01 Sep 2021:
>
> The second problem is the redirection. Based on the above, command
> substitutions in a redirection are supposed to affect the exit status just
> as any other command substitution, but the standard says:
>
> 3. Redirections shall be performed as
Hi,
On 01/09/2021 14:38, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
Consider the following:
true
a=$? b=`exit 1` b=$? >`echo /dev/null; exit 2`
echo $? $a $b
Having read the relevant sections of the standard a couple times, I
would expect the output to be `1 0 0';
I agree.
Consider the following:
true
a=$? b=`exit 1` b=$? >`echo /dev/null; exit 2`
echo $? $a $b
Having read the relevant sections of the standard a couple times, I
would expect the output to be `1 0 0'; but that's not the case with
most shells. Below are what each shell I have on my computer output
13 matches
Mail list logo