From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9953 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2016 07:53:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 39554 Received: (qmail 10648 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2016 07:53:35 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(140.77.13.17):SA:0(0.0/5.0):. Processed in 0.475236 secs); 04 Oct 2016 07:53:35 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: vincent@vinc17.net X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at vinc17.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:45:38 +0200 From: Vincent Lefevre To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: 'set -e' with '!' POSIX issue Message-ID: <20161004074538.GD4212@cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr> Mail-Followup-To: zsh-workers@zsh.org References: <70cf25f2-f156-51c4-60b6-00def8769328@inlv.org> <20161002185530.3fa8c013@ntlworld.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20161002185530.3fa8c013@ntlworld.com> X-Mailer-Info: https://www.vinc17.net/mutt/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0-6804-vl-r91193 (2016-10-01) On 2016-10-02 18:55:30 +0100, Peter Stephenson wrote: > On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 11:01:18 +0100 > Martijn Dekker wrote: > > 'set -e' ('set -o errexit') is not POSIX compliant on zsh because it > > doesn't ignore a command beginning with "!". > > I don't really like the errexit logic as there are too many horrible > cases, since the place we need to test is different from where the code > is being executed (look at the particularly horrible oldnoeerrexit > logic). This was not entirely trivial but we might get away with it. > > The tests are for ERR_RETURN because that's easier to write; most of the > logic is shared with ERR_EXIT. I thought that this was not supposed to change: http://www.zsh.org/mla/workers/2009/msg00572.html http://www.zsh.org/mla/workers/2009/msg00574.html I haven't checked the current status for the other two cases. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)