Re: grammar triviality with '&&'

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/04/2015 12:55 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> The feature would be there. Then every programmer is free to do what 
> he likes.

> A programmer is not forced to use this feature.

Exactly.  The traditionalist wouldn't touch it in any case.  All 
existing code would
remain (*must* remain) unaffected.  If an extra degree of freedom and 
capability
was possible, and IF it could be implemented with no gotchas, then why 
not? This
assuming of course that it could be implemented simply and efficiently (fat
chance).  I can hardly comment on the 'alias' method but it does seem 
contrived
and maybe full of gotchas.  It still seems to me that the " [[ $? -eq 0 
]] " test
is implicit before any '&&' anyway, and that since a line break doesn't 
make the
value disappear, then

&& ...

can mean nothing other than 'grab last '$?' and continue parsing'. The 
'errexit'
thing is a feature or a gotcha as you guys decide.