Re: return exit code in EXIT trap

[Robert E. Griffith]

On 8/5/22 21:49, Koichi Murase wrote:
> 2022年8月3日(水) 21:19 Robert E. Griffith <bobg@junga.com>:
> > That was an interesting read. The illuminating point for me was the
> > statement to the effect of "the POSIX specification is not meant to
> > describe what it correct or rational, but what historically has been
> > implemented so that existing scripts will remain unbroken". This makes
> > me appreciate Chet's position more.
> Could you explain your thinking in a little more detail?
All that I was saying is what I appreciate more now is that in something 
as widely used and in various ways as bash is, correctness is not the 
final determination.  There is some 'law' I heard quoted saying 
something like -- any API that is widely used will have every aspect, 
both intention and unintentional, exploited and relied upon. A good 
example is the 'using history to parse strings' solution that you 
provided to my question in the other thread yesterday. Because of the 
stability of bash we can use that without a lot of risk that the next 
version is going to break it.

We all have benefited from the stability of bash but sometimes that 
stability comes with a cost.

kre makes a good argument for the correctness of A in his response last 
night, but I dont hear anyone arguing against the correctness of A -- I 
dont think that is the point. The POSIX language is broken and before 
its fixed, it might be more prudent to wait to make yet another change 
concerning this feature to bash.

Personally, I would change it to A now but I am glad that there is 
inertial that has to be overcome before a change to existing behavior is 
made.

--BobG