Re: Behaviour of eval in sh(1) and ksh(1) in AND-OR list with set -e
On 2019-06-05, Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri wrote: > When running under set -e, why does > eval false || echo ok > terminate the script with the execution of eval? I think that's a bug. > then why does the below behave differently? > eval ! true || echo ok That's actually the documented, POSIX-specified behavior. Somewhat bizarrely, ! disables errexit. The eval doesn't matter here. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: Behaviour of eval in sh(1) and ksh(1) in AND-OR list with set -e
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 08:05:48PM +0200, Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri wrote: > When running under set -e, why does > > eval false || echo ok Just to clarify: OpenBSD's sh(1) and ksh(1) make it impossible to run code like set -e if eval "$string"; then echo ok else echo not ok fi where "$string" is a piece of code that returns a non-zero exit status. This script would not output anything with string=false, for example, even though the eval occurs as a test within a conditional statement. > > terminate the script with the execution of eval? As far as I know, the > OpenBSD sh(1) and ksh(1) shells are the only ones doing that. > > If we take termination of the script as a given in the above scenario > (even if it feel a bit odd since it's in an AND-OR list), then why does > the below behave differently? > > eval ! true || echo ok > > This would not terminate the shell regardless of set -e or not. > > Is that a bug or is it a different interpretation of the standard? > > > > -- > Kusalananda > Sweden -- Kusalananda Sweden
Behaviour of eval in sh(1) and ksh(1) in AND-OR list with set -e
When running under set -e, why does eval false || echo ok terminate the script with the execution of eval? As far as I know, the OpenBSD sh(1) and ksh(1) shells are the only ones doing that. If we take termination of the script as a given in the above scenario (even if it feel a bit odd since it's in an AND-OR list), then why does the below behave differently? eval ! true || echo ok This would not terminate the shell regardless of set -e or not. Is that a bug or is it a different interpretation of the standard? -- Kusalananda Sweden
