From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-30796-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 4343 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 10:34:55 -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: 30796
Received: (qmail 27231 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2012 10:34:43 -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
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at samsung.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:24:37 +0000
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: Function code breaking out of if then ...fi
Message-id: <20121112102437.2cb5d357@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <20121110212330.0d74f97f@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
References:
 <CAPHw+0WsmZAsfMVyE0zYkq46=qHFH8U_6qNRD=JbNti2_oMd_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <121102143911.ZM14168@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20121105142942.41d73d31@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20121105145501.50c674f1@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20121109225255.7139bb47@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
 <121109171319.ZM4069@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20121110212330.0d74f97f@pws-pc.ntlworld.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-TM-AS-MML: No

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:23:30 +0000
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:13:19 -0800
> Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> > When reading a startup file such as .zshrc, there is an intent to
> > avoid skipping the entire configuration just because of one
> > erroneous command somewhere in the middle.
> 
> I've a vague memory of this too, but evidence suggests it's not
> showing CONTINUE_ON_ERROR behaviour (this is before my patch):

In fact, the code I've altered can't have an effect on this:  as it says
in the essay I wrote before, I'm modifying code above the "top-level"
loop in loop(), that's called mainly to handle "do you really want to
exit" for interactive shells.  The initialisation code is not handled
from here; run_init_scripts() has finised from this point.  I think we'd
need code within loop() itself, which handles the lines read from
startup files.  In this code the test

	if (((!interact || sourcelevel) && errflag) || retflag)
	    break;

ensures we *do* break out of the loop if we're sourcing a file (whether
or not at initialisation).

Hmm... we're not getting confused between keeping going in a particular
startup file and allowing the shell to execute another file, are we?

pws