Chet Ramey wrote:
On 2/8/12 9:28 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Please note, I didn't compare anyone or their actions to those of Nazi's,
This discussion has gone on for a long time; the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis hit 1; ipso facto, Godwin's Law holds.
But that would be simil
On 2/8/12 9:28 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Please note, I didn't compare anyone or their actions to those of Nazi's,
This discussion has gone on for a long time; the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis hit 1; ipso facto, Godwin's Law holds.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne
Please note, I didn't compare anyone or their actions to those of Nazi's,
I used them as a historically famous example of someone who claimed to only
be following 'orders', (or the rules, or the standardwhatever!)... and in
a world court, it was deemed that such excuses were not a valid excu
On 2/8/12 6:31 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>Adhering to orders that are wrong, because "it's the 'standard', didn't
>work for
>Nazi officers, some excuse for not using their brain an realizing theA
>'rules' or standard as stated IS wrong.
I note another instance of proof of Godwin's La
Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/30/2012 02:27 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
As Eric said, the other parts of the Posix description make it clear that
the `ignoring set -e' status is inherited by subshells.
The original POSIX standard made this clear -- in that
it was only a fail
On 2/6/12 8:18 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is this a bug? In the script below, I'm using a variable to control whether
> the script uses set -e or not, because the behavior is dependent on whether
> set -e is set. When the script hits the bad substitution, it runs the exit
> handler and
I don't quite understand what your error report is saying, but when I
was trying to read your script, I couldn't help noticing a few things:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 06:24:11PM +0100, Hardy Flor wrote:
> #!/bin/bash
>
> inputfile=""
Actually it's just one file name.
> leer_max=" "
