Re: grammar triviality with '&&'

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 03/02/2015 08:49 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:31am, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> } Subject: Re: grammar triviality with '&&'
> }
> } On 2015-03-02 00:54:40 -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> } >
> } > If nothing else, the errexit option would fail.  With errexit,
> }
> } I agree that's not equivalent, but this would not be a problem
> } in a "if ... then" construct (though I think it's a bad idea
> } to use such a feature here).
>
> Except that's exactly where Ray wants to use it!
Prezactly.  My thinking is (surprise!) C-ish--the newline should be 
irrelevant.  Just as one can end a line with && so should one be able to 
begin a line the same way, same logic.  If there is a real monster 
hiding under the bed tho with this 'errexit' thing, then any tinkering 
could really break something.  Or maybe it could be a feature ... but 
it's in 'Kurtis' territory, i.e. we'd need to be very careful.  Nope, I 
was thinking of  " && [ -e file ] " being simply the logical equivalent 
of " [ -e file ] && " ... if in the latter case the syntax 'folds' 
itself around to the next line, then I'd expect that the opposite 
situation might also be legal.  A pipe must have commands/statements pre 
and post, no? We already permit the 'post' to be on the next line, so 
I'm just thinkin' that the 'pre' could be on the previous line in the 
same way.  No gotchas!