On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Eric Blake wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha <at> cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> > > Because it's in a for loop, and when the first file fails but second
> > > succeeds, you still want the overall command to exit with failure.
> >
> > That's the correct intent, but shouldn't it be &&= instead of &=,
> > technically?
>
> There's no such thing as &&=. And even if there was, you wouldn't want
> to use it, because it would short-circuit running cygcheck(). The whole
> point of the boolean collector is to run the test on every file, but to
> remember if any of the tests failed. Maybe thinking of a short-circuit
> in the reverse direction will help you understand:
> [snip]
Ok, ok, IOWTWIWT... :-) I'm well aware of the short circuiting
behavior of &&.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
