Re: grammar triviality with '&&'

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/01/2015 07:53 PM, Kurtis Rader wrote:
> How often would such a feature be useful? Very infrequently in my 
> opinion. Furthermore, it is almost guaranteed to cause anyone reading 
> the statement to wonder if the author made a mistake as the idiom is 
> unlike anything else I can think of in Bourne style shells. I believe 
> the benefits don't justify the costs of the feature. 

Well, what would the costs be?  It looks to me that the error is an 
arbitrary restriction and if it didn't break something I'd remove it 
even if for no  other reason that that it is arbitrary.  Of course if 
there were any complications, then it shouldn't be touched.  Oh, and of 
course no one has to use it if they think it would ruffle anyone's 
feathers as far as tradition, but I'd use it for  sure. Things should 
only be limited where it is necessary that they be limited.  I'd not be 
surprised if the code was actually simpler, '&&' would just grab the 
errorlevel of the previous command as always and there'd just be one 
less error to handle.