Re: Error status of "repeat" (was Re: [PATCH] typeset: set $? on incidental error)

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:18:06 +0000
Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter Stephenson wrote on Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:52:12 +0000:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:15:13 -0800
> > Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Jan 26, 10:50pm, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > }
> > > } What would you expect "repeat 0+++ (exit 42)" to set $? to?
> 
> I won't say "break", but here are some syntaxes that will now have
> a different meaning:

Yeah, probably stuff people never quite intended to work the way it
actually did, but no guarantees.

> Should we add a NEWS entry for this?

Certainly; it could even be bumped to "incompatibilities" in the README
based on one or two of your examples.

pws