Hush does not handle "set -o pipefail".

[Rob Landley]

On Saturday 13 November 2010 19:02:33 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 November 2010 07:40, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Or any set -o for that matter.  But pipefail's one that's really hard to
> > work around if you haven't got it...
>
> But this will increase complexity, would it not?

Are you being facetious?  I can't tell in email.

If you can tell me how to both pipe the output of a command to tee _and_ tell 
whether nor not the command exited with a nonzero exit code without it, I'm 
all ears.  I couldn't figure out how to do so without firing up a subshell and 
signaling result state via the filesystem, which means adding a trap handler to 
clean up the file if it's interrupted (which still won't handle kill -9) and is 
basically "too disgusting for words" compared to pipefail.  Heck, the BSD guys 
backported pipefail to ksh, it's that useful.

Complexity is a cost, the functionality you get in return needs to be worth 
that cost.  I'm talking about getting the most functionality for the least 
complexity.  Sometimes you give up functionality that's too complex to be 
worth it, and sometimes you have to abandon a wonderfully simple approach 
because it just can't do what you need.

If you want to reduce complexity of the project unconditionally, "rm -rf *" in 
the source tree can't be beat.  You'll never get simpler than the end result 
of that.

Rob 
-- 
GPLv3: as worthy a successor as The Phantom Menace, as timely as Duke Nukem 
Forever, and as welcome as New Coke.