From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6724 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2000 00:19:05 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 2 Oct 2000 00:19:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 11478 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2000 00:18:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12868 Received: (qmail 11464 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2000 00:18:48 -0000 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:18:41 -0400 From: Clint Adams To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Use of zerr() vs. zwarn() Message-ID: <20001001201841.B12600@dman.com> References: <20000927154646.B4971@dman.com> <1000928033550.ZM13657@candle.brasslantern.com> <1000929165834.ZM14923@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.2i In-Reply-To: <1000929165834.ZM14923@candle.brasslantern.com>; from schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com on Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 04:58:34PM +0000 > This would appear to be (as I suspected) a simple case of changing some > calls to zerr() to be calls to zwarn() instead. However, there are a > number of other places where zerr() is called that would have to change > in order to generalize "builtins behave as if forked". > > There also seem to be a number of inconsistencies in whether zerr() or > zwarn() is used for a particular condition. The following is an audit > of places where I think the usage *might* need revision. With current CVS and exec.c:2178 changed to zwarn, the failed redirection from a builtin behaves as the failed redirection from a forked command, or however that should be expressed in English. I can't see any value to not doing it this way except perhaps in interactive contexts, and even then it's a bit counterintuitive. I would expect something like echo blah blah blah >>logfile || echo log problem | mailx pagesomeone to do the same thing as /bin/echo blah blah blah >>logfile || echo log problem | mailx pagesomeone