[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [language-experts] bash --version 4.4.12(1)
From: |
Niels Möller |
Subject: |
Re: [language-experts] bash --version 4.4.12(1) |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:56:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (berkeley-unix) |
étienne <address@hidden> writes:
> I drop you this email because I noted something on bash version 4.4.12(1),
> In advance i'm sorry if it is not relevant, or if it is not the
> appropriate email address.
If you really think the previous behaviour was useful and valuable,
please mail a bug report to the appropriate bash mailing list, with a
clear example (preferably in English) and a motivation.
> Suspense () {
> # si identique à une déjà sortie, on recommence
> grep -q $res $1 && continue # 2>/dev/null # this redirection is
> sufficient to solve the "issue"
> echo $res >> $1
> }
If we think about a shell function as a function rather than a macro,
using continue like this makes no sense to me.
I think your script will be much clearer if you use the function's exit
code, something like
Suspense () {
grep -q $res $1 && return 1;
echo $res >> $1
}
And inside the loop, invoke it like
Suspense || continue
It might also be relevant to check what the posix standard on /bin/sh
says about continue. I'd guess that the old behaviour to be a bash
extension, and likely an unintended extension.
Regards,
/Niels
--
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid 368C6677.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.