----Original Message---- >From: Igor Pechtchanski >Sent: 06 July 2005 16:36
> 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 I thought it too when I first looked at the code, but realised the short-circuit implication before I had time to write a reply.... But it _was_ news to me that there's no &&= operator! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....