From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-33792-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 16664 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2014 09:18:41 -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: 33792
Received: (qmail 9527 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2014 09:18:27 -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
X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7fc86d0000066b7-3e-5474495e366e
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:18:22 +0000
From: Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com>
To: zsh workers <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: TRY_BLOCK_ERROR and exit status
Message-id: <20141125091822.6bcbad52@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
In-reply-to: <141125000123.ZM17533@torch.brasslantern.com>
References: <5470C427.4050805@thequod.de>
 <CAHYJk3S5pBBNnAKqyGRYq7KAstpSAJOPQRdbHjoKrurLKFbOcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5470CF7C.2000707@thequod.de>
 <CAHYJk3R81LhwfwxaDHRSMP0HZmbE7V3hrrn5Q4jGzRzBPRC=oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5472040F.8020803@thequod.de>
 <CAHYJk3RpnsauBYHw1QHbvpsTfM+0oSih_7diJTm2Ybp9xLYOxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <141123115755.ZM10874@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20141124101152.39741cc8@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <141125000123.ZM17533@torch.brasslantern.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-Brightmail-Tracker:
 H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuphluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42I5/e/4Zd04z5IQg1NvzCwONj9kcmD0WHXw
	A1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxtaXG1kLVrBUbJs1i6WBcS1zFyMnh4SAicTVRydZIWwxiQv3
	1rN1MXJxCAksZZTo71jACJIQEljOJDHtmQKIzSKgKnHg6EUWEJtNwFBi6qbZYDUiQPHm7//A
	4sICOhLvP/0Gsjk4eAXsJVbuTQUJcwpYSZz8c5oJYv4VZokPk36D9fIL6Etc/fuJCeIIe4mZ
	V86AxXkFBCV+TL4HNpNZQEti87YmVghbXmLzmrfMExgFZiEpm4WkbBaSsgWMzKsYRVNLkwuK
	k9JzjfSKE3OLS/PS9ZLzczcxQkLw6w7GpcesDjEKcDAq8fBWaBaHCLEmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLh
	jZoHFOJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cDY9biDO3DXqYL762/dye043HJx+7lZNyZJP79j
	nLVli4BloEfS8rmOKz+fuaxfP3m5ocPeeX59wZmngxl2l1bn3Nzqf/6HVrhF5noZnsfSctvF
	WZYvUhQ/m1G89PVF7976E0IHdh7OW/9Kul31fcmWsOtMWhLr8+1u/u5hMeec9FKlwfkB+0sZ
	JZbijERDLeai4kQAABMn3h8CAAA=

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:01:23 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> } Given that "always" isn't all that widely used, changing it to return
> } the last status of the always block might also work.  However, it
> } doesn't look necessary to go that far.
> 
> Do you mean return the last status of the always block only in the case
> where errflag is nonzero at the end of the try block?

Yes, we wouldn't want to affect non-error cases.

> I agree it isn't necessary to go that far.  This?

That seems reasonable.

pws