[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revisiting Error handling (errexit)

From: Yair Lenga
Subject: Re: Revisiting Error handling (errexit)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 19:04:14 +0300

(typo correction).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I admit that my goals are
significantly less ambitious compared with what you described (lexical
scope, etc.). I do not think that it's possible to stretch my proposal to
meet all the use cases you describe. For me, the 'errfail' is similar to
'pipefail' option - practical solution for real problems. The suggested
'errfail' in opt-in - anyone that want the old way (errexit) can use it,
without saying anything. As you said, errexit was not 'good' solution when
conceived, no point in trying to match it (IHMO).


On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:08 PM Martin D Kealey <martin@kurahaupo.gen.nz>

> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 at 05:39, Yair Lenga <yair.lenga@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Re: command prefaced by ! which is important:
>> * The '!' operator 'normal' behavior is to reverse the exit status of a
>> command ('if ! check-something ; then ...').

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]