| 1 |
On 16/04/2022 10.38, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022, Sam James wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> +# @FUNCTION: edo |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Just a remark: A similar command existed a long time ago under the |
| 7 |
> name "try". [1] |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It was executed under "env" [2], should we also do that? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> +# @USAGE: command [arg1 [arg2 ...]] |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> <command> should be in angle brackets, if we follow the usual |
| 14 |
> convention. Maybe even "<command> [arg]..." |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>> +# @DESCRIPTION: |
| 17 |
>> +# Executes 'command' with any given arguments and exits on failure unless |
| 18 |
>> +# called under 'nonfatal'. |
| 19 |
>> +edo() { |
| 20 |
>> + elog "$@" |
| 21 |
>> + "$@" || die -n "Failed to run command: $@ failed" |
| 22 |
>> +} |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Maybe add an ebegin/eend variant? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
+1 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> edobe() { |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
nit: I'd personally would use 'edob', as shorter is sometimes better |
| 31 |
plus every begin needs an end, so no need to explicitly state that there |
| 32 |
is an end. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> ebegin "Running $@" |
| 35 |
> "$@" |
| 36 |
> eend $? || die -n "$@ failed" > return $? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I think this return statement can be omitted since it will always be |
| 39 |
invoked with 0 as argument, and this is the default behavior of implicit |
| 40 |
function return (IIRC). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
- Flow |
Archives