Date:Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:15:59 -0800 (PST)
From:"Roger Marquis via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <6sn184nr-6299-838p-qpro-03qs07401...@mx.roble.com>
| Never seen a script use "!" in this way. Is it undocumented?
No. That particular usage is
Date:Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:40:24 +0100
From:"Christoph Anton Mitterer via austin-group-l at The Open
Group"
Message-ID: <9e56d4028f077e0d5dcc2ec2448de62b400a69a3.ca...@scientia.org>
| If so, then IMO strictly speaking, it doesn't say whose $? shall be set
| that
On Thursday, February 15, 2024, Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The
Open Group wrote:
>
> Because the eval command parses a command from a string, here, the second
> ! is not part of the last pipeline. The last pipeline is just "break". The
> "eval" command's exit status would be negated,
On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 09:18 -0500, Chet Ramey via austin-group-l at The
Open Group wrote:
> POSIX requires this, since it says that return sets $? to 1 here.
I assume you mean the description of the exit status from `return`?
> The value of the special parameter '?' shall be set to n, an
>
On 13/02/2024 22:38, Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open
Group wrote:
On 13/02/2024 21:04, Thorsten Glaser via austin-group-l at The Open
Group wrote:
> After all, the continue utility doesn't know it's called by the !
construct.
In ash-derived shells, this basically works because
On 2/14/24 12:06 AM, Oğuz wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024, Chet Ramey via austin-group-l at The Open
Group mailto:austin-group-l@opengroup.org>>
wrote:
`continue' is a builtin; continue has a return status; `!' says to
negate it. It seems easy to come to the conclusion that the
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:08 AM Harald van Dijk wrote:
> I still see a difference between yash 2.53 and 2.54, not 2.54 and
> 2.55
Must be an error on my part
> but in dash, gwsh, and yash alike, it looks like it is that same
> fix for the return command that also affected the break and
On 14/02/2024 07:54, Oğuz wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:58 AM Harald van Dijk wrote:
The test script with 'return'?
I mean this one:
for x in y; do
! continue
done
echo $?
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I still do not see the same results as
you (I still see a
