Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/1] edo.eclass: add new eclass
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>> edobe() {
> nit: I'd personally would use 'edob', as shorter is sometimes better
> plus every begin needs an end, so no need to explicitly state that
> there is an end.
It's even more obscure as a name however. :)
>> ebegin "Running $@"
>> "$@"
>> eend $? || die -n "$@ failed"
>> return $?
> I think this return statement can be omitted since it will always be
> invoked with 0 as argument, and this is the default behavior of
> implicit function return (IIRC).
You're right, the return statement is redundant.
>> }
Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/1] edo.eclass: add new eclass
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 06:48:56AM -0400, Ionen Wolkens wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 12:23:18PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > > ebegin "Running $@" > > > "$@" > > > eend $? || die -n "$@ failed" > return $? > > > > I think this return statement can be omitted since it will always be > > invoked with 0 as argument, and this is the default behavior of implicit > > function return (IIRC). > > Not with nonfatal (die is using -n to allow it) > > nonfatal edo false || echo "different error handling: $?" > > Without return $?, the above will echo 0 or 1 if die was triggered > but (with current implementation) won't be the actual return code. Err wait, return $? won't help with that, need a temporary variable to preserve. return $? indeed does nothing here :) -- ionen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/1] edo.eclass: add new eclass
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 12:23:18PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > ebegin "Running $@" > > "$@" > > eend $? || die -n "$@ failed" > return $? > > I think this return statement can be omitted since it will always be > invoked with 0 as argument, and this is the default behavior of implicit > function return (IIRC). Not with nonfatal (die is using -n to allow it) nonfatal edo false || echo "different error handling: $?" Without return $?, the above will echo 0 or 1 if die was triggered but (with current implementation) won't be the actual return code. That still mostly work but maybe, e.g. the code need to check if grep returned 2 (aka error) while 1 isn't an error but just didn't match anything. -- ionen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/1] edo.eclass: add new eclass
On 16/04/2022 10.38, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Sam James wrote:
+# @FUNCTION: edo
Just a remark: A similar command existed a long time ago under the
name "try". [1]
It was executed under "env" [2], should we also do that?
+# @USAGE: command [arg1 [arg2 ...]]
should be in angle brackets, if we follow the usual
convention. Maybe even " [arg]..."
+# @DESCRIPTION:
+# Executes 'command' with any given arguments and exits on failure unless
+# called under 'nonfatal'.
+edo() {
+ elog "$@"
+ "$@" || die -n "Failed to run command: $@ failed"
+}
Maybe add an ebegin/eend variant?
+1
edobe() {
nit: I'd personally would use 'edob', as shorter is sometimes better
plus every begin needs an end, so no need to explicitly state that there
is an end.
ebegin "Running $@"
"$@"
eend $? || die -n "$@ failed" > return $?
I think this return statement can be omitted since it will always be
invoked with 0 as argument, and this is the default behavior of implicit
function return (IIRC).
- Flow
