From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27170 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2013 08:43:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 18031 Received: (qmail 1321 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2013 08:42:55 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7ef66d00000795a-8e-525d000b1263 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:42:48 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: process substitution bug with set -e? Message-id: <20131015094248.1cb9611d@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <131014104749.ZM591@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <20131014124126.GA31070@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr> <20131014144838.6ec034dd@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20131014150845.GB31070@ypig.lip.ens-lyon.fr> <20131014172854.70e2c3ce@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <131014104749.ZM591@torch.brasslantern.com> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42I5/e/4VV1uhtggg54FrBY7Tq5kdGD0WHXw A1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxruLC5gK/jNXXPrzgL2BcQZzFyMnh4SAicTv1Z9ZIWwxiQv3 1rN1MXJxCAksZZSYs66fEcphktgw/TlYFYuAqsSfFTfBbDYBQ4mpm2YzgtgiAqISy1dsZgex hQWMJD5+6gKzeQXsJfb+vgZWzylgIXF521VmiKHNTBInTn9lA0nwC+hLXP37iQniDHuJmVfO MEI0C0r8mHyPBcRmFtCS2LytiRXClpfYvOYt8wRGgVlIymYhKZuFpGwBI/MqRtHU0uSC4qT0 XCO94sTc4tK8dL3k/NxNjJAw/LqDcekxq0OMAhyMSjy8AQIxQUKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVEeCu+ A4V4UxIrq1KL8uOLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUw9l1u+H8wlzV8U5ac26y/fcY55WYGm3mu95xN+LP5 msercx2BV+OCawKmJWxPmbp5tdGKabeep69d8fiV05bvbI5fayVOddq/f8zd/TfvdOquwM21 Myc//c+iW/z5RcX9U83tsTkaF3cUf34rW9e+XtFyVrFHccTHqWyJ++ScJVrO5Oj/96p8ocRS nJFoqMVcVJwIACBMxQQhAgAA On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:47:49 -0700 Bart Schaefer wrote: > So we've pretty much decided on a case-by-case basis what to document and > what not to, but in this instance we've done enough legwork that it is > probably worth writing it down. What scope should be trying to cover here? Simply document for process substiution that if the code to which the substitution applies exits early the shell won't wait for it to finish? Or can we infer something a bit wider? pws