Re: Exception handling and "trap" vs. TRAPNAL()

[DervishD <zsh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Hi Bart :)

 * Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> dixit:
>   Otherwise, the normal effect of the signal is produced;
> 
> This is clearly inaccurate.  If it were accurate, a non-zero return
> from TRAPHUP, TRAPABRT, or TRAPALRM (among others) ought to cause the
> shell to exit.  This demonstrably does not happen.  What *does* happen
> is that all levels of nested loop are broken (as if by the "break N"
> command with a sufficiently large N) and the shell is forced to behave
> as if a shell-level error occurred.

    I haven't tested that. But I see your point.

    I'm starting to think the same: it's a documentation problem, not
a code problem (although eliminating the special case for TRAPNAL
doesn't sound bad...).

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
http://www.pleyades.net & http://www.gotesdelluna.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...