Re: [PATCH] ERR_EXIT with "for" loops and shell functions (Re: Bug report)

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:56:13 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This one:
> 
> } +  set --
> } +  false
> } +  for x; do
> } +    print nothing executed
> } +  done
> } +0:Status 0 from for with implicit empty list
> 
> Makes me wonder if my similar test of "select" needs an explicit "set --"
> as well?

Obviously wouldn't hurt, but the chances of extra arguments creeping
into the function that's executing the test is probably fairly low.

pws