Re: Intriguing error with arithmetic evaluation

[Chet Ramey]

On 8/15/16 6:15 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
> 
> 
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to which
>> `set -e' applies.  The (( command (among others) was added to that list
>> in bash-4.1.  The change was the result of Posix changing the semantics
>> of the errexit option and expanding its scope from simple commands to
>> all commands.
>>
>> The (( command returns 1 if the expression evaluates to 0.  When `level' is
>> 0, level++ returns a 0 value, and (( returns a status of 1.
>>   
> That doesn't explain why those not using posix mode should suffer the
> arbitrary added incompatibility with previous code.
> 
> POSIX was meant to describe existing code -- not cause incompatibilities with
> old or current code.
> 
> POSIX disbanded and the name has changed hands to be run by people
> unassociated with the original POSIX charter -- who created a different
> charter.

Very little in this message is accurate.

Your conspiracy-theory game is still strong, though.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/