Re: -i option of set missing in man bash

[Eduardo A . Bustamante López]

> Here's the other side: allowing `set -$-' to succeed keeps a Posix-mode
> shell running a script from throwing a fatal error.  Allowing it also
> keeps the bug reports down.  The same rationale can be used to add -c and
> -s to the no-op flags, since those are command-line options that end up
> in $-.
I know this following line of thought doesn't help much, but, have you really
seen that used in the wild?

So:

dualbus@hp ~ % for sh in bash dash ksh93 mksh zsh; do echo "$sh"; "$sh" -c 'set 
-i$-'; done
bash
bash: line 0: set: -c: invalid option
set: usage: set [-abefhkmnptuvxBCHP] [-o option-name] [--] [arg ...]
dash
ksh93
ksh93: set: -i: unknown option
ksh93: set: -c: unknown option
Usage: set [-sabefhkmnprtuvxBCGH] [-A name] [-o[option]] [arg ...]
mksh
mksh: set: -i: unknown option
zsh
zsh:set:1: can't change option: -i

Or

dualbus@hp ~ % for sh in bash dash ksh93 mksh zsh; do echo "$sh"; "$sh" -c 'set 
-$-'; done 
bash
bash: line 0: set: -c: invalid option
set: usage: set [-abefhkmnptuvxBCHP] [-o option-name] [--] [arg ...]
dash
ksh93
ksh93: set: -c: unknown option
Usage: set [-sabefhkmnprtuvxBCGH] [-A name] [-o[option]] [arg ...]
mksh
mksh: set: -c: unknown option
zsh

Don't seem to be very useful in general.


Honestly, I'm happy with whatever path you decide to follow. The only thing I
don't like about being able to turn the 'i' flag with set is that it doesn't
really put the shell in interactive mode, and it bit me into thinking that it
did (because the flag was showing in $-). And I don't know of a way to query
the shell to print the status of the 'interactive' global var (as you can do
with shopt login_shell).