Re: set -e vs. #!/bin/sh -e

To: olly@lfix.co.uk (Oliver Elphick)
Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: set -e vs. #!/bin/sh -e
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 23:36:41 +1000 (EST)
Message-id: <[🔎] 199805161336.XAA19706@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 199805161333.OAA09459@linda.lfix.co.uk> from Oliver Elphick at "May 16, 98 02:33:28 pm"

Oliver Elphick wrote:
>
> There are cases where one wants to sandwich a section of code with `set -e'
> `set +e'.  Policy should not be so rigid as to exclude the possibility 
> of doing this.

Hmm, let's forget about what I've said for a sec.  I don't think that any
script should do the above in any case, can you present an example that cannot
be fixed by some other (better) means?

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 1.3 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

References:
- Re: set -e vs. #!/bin/sh -e
  - From: "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: set -e vs. #!/bin/sh -e
Next by Date: Re: set -e vs. #!/bin/sh -e
Previous by thread: Re: set -e vs. #!/bin/sh -e
Next by thread: Re: set -e vs. #!/bin/sh -e
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread