Re: [PATCH] Fix ERR_EXIT behavior in function calls and "always" statements

[Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022, at 5:17 AM, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> On the whole I think keeping anonymous functions behaving like other functions
> is probably sensible, though we could draw better attention to this unusual
> degree of consistency somewhere in the documentation.
>
> I don't think there's a killer argument for this but if you're using an
> anonymous function it's because you need some form of function behaviour and
> my own inclination would be to continue to provide essentially the whole of it,
> hopefully also limiting special cases in the source code.

There would certainly be value in permitting

    set -e
    foo() { cmd1; cmd2; cmd3 }
    foo
    unset -f foo

to be simplified to

    set -e
    () { cmd1; cmd2; cmd3 }

while maintaining the same early-exit behavior.  That consistency
might be more useful than strict adherence to the syntax-based logic
of POSIX "set -e".  Plus, as Bart noted, the (...) exception has
already set a precedent for special treatment.

-- 
vq