From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23330 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2006 00:02:28 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Nov 2006 00:02:28 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 90493 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2006 20:02:21 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 Nov 2006 20:02:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 5473 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2006 20:02:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 23007 Received: (qmail 5464 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2006 20:02:18 -0000 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 Nov 2006 20:02:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 90247 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2006 20:02:18 -0000 Received: from acolyte.scowler.net (216.254.112.45) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 19 Nov 2006 20:02:14 -0000 Received: by acolyte.scowler.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 60CC870055; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:02:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:02:11 -0500 From: Clint Adams To: Peter Stephenson Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: error code for failure to execute Message-ID: <20061119200211.GA22369@scowler.net> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Stephenson , zsh-workers@sunsite.dk References: <20061118034710.GA31046@scowler.net> <200611191950.kAJJoHVm003181@pwslaptop.csr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200611191950.kAJJoHVm003181@pwslaptop.csr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) > Yes, I think so, but I don't really understand the question. > Are you asking about the following? No, I'm confused by why it changes from 126 to 127 when stderr is redirected to /dev/null.