Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:03:39 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Adrian Wontroba <aw1@stade.co.uk> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bourne shell short-circuit operators improperly documented Message-ID: <867hy5sz2s.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20090718024835.GB8379@steerpike.hanley.stade.co.uk> (Adrian Wontroba's message of "Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:48:35 %2B0100") References: <200907172257.QAA15292@lariat.net> <20090718000116.GA8379@steerpike.hanley.stade.co.uk> <200907180121.TAA16416@lariat.net> <20090718024835.GB8379@steerpike.hanley.stade.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adrian Wontroba <aw1@stade.co.uk> writes: > Perhaps the syntax could have been " and " / " or " (as in Perl's > and / or statement qualifiers (something() or die "oops";), but it is > far too late to change sh syntax. We have to live with it or use a > different shell or language. Pop quiz: what are the semantics of the follwing command line after your proposed change: echo I need a box and cat litter for my new kittens. There is absolutely nothing surprising or illogical about the && and || command separators. There is absolutely nothing surprising about "zero means success, non- zero means failure" either - that's how most Unix system calls and many standard C library functions work. I'm sure we all have better things to do than argue about this non- issue. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?867hy5sz2s.fsf>