On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:45:31 -0500, Vladimir Panteleev
<vladi...@thecybershadow.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 14:26:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:15:05 -0500, Vladimir Panteleev
<vladi...@thecybershadow.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 14:02:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
If I use $XYZ in a script, and XYZ isn't set, it equates to nothing.
When I use getenv, it returns null. That is the behavior I would
intuitively expect.
I thought well-written scripts should use "set -u"?
I didn't even know about that. But my point still stands -- if
well-written scripts are supposed to use set -u, it should be the
default.
Pretty sure it can't be the default due to backwards-compatibility
reasons.
Hm... what about something like Environment.throwOnUnsetVariable = true;
That would break with programs using distinct components that rely on
that setting's value...
They would just segfault instead of throwing an exception, no? I think
people would understand those consequences, but they could be spelled out
in the docs for that property.
We could also make the default true, since that is what existing code
currently expects.
-Steve
