| 1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> ( source "${f}" || die "sourcing ${f} failed" ) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> 2b. Unless someone knows a way around this, this means that the check |
| 5 |
> -- unless 'die'-fatal -- needs to ensure non-zero status of last |
| 6 |
> comment, likely via some trailing 'true' or ':'. Since we can't |
| 7 |
> distinguish between non-zero return from script and non-zero exit |
| 8 |
> due to syntax error or so. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Just a nit that the subshell needs to exit 0, not non-zero. 0 is |
| 11 |
success, non-zero is error. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The calling could be expanded and there could be a contract about |
| 14 |
different exit codes meaning different things. Since "we" control |
| 15 |
both sides of this contract it's not limited to a binary result. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> 3b. We really do want to legalize die in subshells. We can't live |
| 19 |
> without it anyway, so why pretending it's illegal? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Why would it be? If something is a fatal error then it is a fatal |
| 22 |
error. I guess one reason might be that die should only be called in |
| 23 |
the top level, but that's also easy enough.. Just exit 1 instead of |
| 24 |
die within the subshell. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> What do you think? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I like it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
//Peter |
Archives