From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-34078-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 16618 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2015 18:56:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 34078
Received: (qmail 27647 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2015 18:56:19 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=LrklEcZZ c=1 sm=1 tr=0	a=FT8er97JFeGWzr5TCOCO5w==:117
 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8	a=oR5dmqMzAAAA:8 a=-9mUelKeXuEA:10
 a=YNv0rlydsVwA:10	a=cuSv_Q51zVMaNXxvj-gA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <150102105613.ZM8621@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:56:13 -0800
In-reply-to: <20150102165623.7c4e3dd1@ntlworld.com>
Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
 "Re: [PATCH] ERR_EXIT with "for" loops and shell functions (Re: Bug report)"
 (Jan  2,  4:56pm)
References: <20141226165344.GC1003@basilisk>
	<141226183516.ZM18384@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<141227163220.ZM11821@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20150102165623.7c4e3dd1@ntlworld.com>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ERR_EXIT with "for" loops and shell functions (Re: Bug
 report)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jan 2,  4:56pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 16:32:20 -0800
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
} > The following patch attempts to fix all of this weirdness.
} 
} However, you must have found everything I did since the tests I added
} now pass. They're all just for status, nothing specific to ERR_EXIT
} or ERR_RETURN; I didn't find I needed to change anything there in the
} main code, just for the status value itself. They overlap with yours
} but that's no big deal. Here they are.

They don't really overlap with mine much at all, because they examine
the normal cases whereas I looked at the ERR_EXIT case.

This one:

} +  set --
} +  false
} +  for x; do
} +    print nothing executed
} +  done
} +0:Status 0 from for with implicit empty list

Makes me wonder if my similar test of "select" needs an explicit "set --"
as well?