[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scripting support (PATCH)
From: |
Yoshinori K. Okuji |
Subject: |
Re: Scripting support (PATCH) |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:45:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.7.2 |
On Sunday 30 October 2005 10:04 pm, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > I really don't like that each command has to explicitly set RESULT. As
> > you note, it would be better if the return code from the command were
> > automatically placed into the status environment variable.
>
> Most command return grub_err_t. The only commands that matter for us
> are commands like `['. Would you propose every commands returns an
> int and that on function return grub_errno is checked?
I agree with Hollis. It should be automatic. What is wrong with setting $? to
grub_errno? Isn't it enough to see if it is GRUB_ERR_NONE or not?
BTW, you added lsb.c, but I don't like this very much. On Unix, the testing
command is "test", and "[" is just an aliases, isn't it? I prefer to use
commands/test.c, and register "[" as another name of test.
Okuji
- Re: Scripting support (PATCH), (continued)
Re: Scripting support (PATCH), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2005/10/31
Re: Scripting support (PATCH), Hollis Blanchard, 2005/10/30