1 |
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 06:52:40PM +0100, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:31:24 -0500 |
3 |
> Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On 03/09/12 12:11, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
6 |
> > >>>>>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > >>> What if bash starts to parse the script completely and barfs at |
9 |
> > >>> 'syntax error' before it starts executing stuff? |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > >> It doesn't parse the script completely, it executes line-by-line, |
12 |
> > >> so we can bail out early. |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > How can you tell that this behaviour won't be changed in a future |
15 |
> > > bash version? |
16 |
> > > |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > Who's to say that in the future my computer won't be made out of |
19 |
> > delicious ice cream, eliminating the need for EAPIs entirely? |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > Chances are, this would break thousands of scripts, so we hope they |
22 |
> > wouldn't do it. If it does happen, we either deal with it then, or |
23 |
> > don't upgrade to that version of bash -- the same as we would do with |
24 |
> > any other massive breaking change. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Thousands of scripts? So... you're saying that people actually use |
27 |
> thousands of scripts which have invalid syntax... |
28 |
|
29 |
Just a note; you need to look into how aliases work. That right there |
30 |
unfortunately means bash isn't going to pre-parse, not as long as |
31 |
aliases are supported. |
32 |
|
33 |
Back to your arguing... |
34 |
~brian |