Notes |
(0000374)
Don Cragun (manager)
2010-01-15 19:53
|
I don't understand why anything needs to be said about the return special built-in utility in the description of the dot special built-in utility. The EXIT STATUS section of the dot utility description already says that the exit status will be the exit status of the last command exeuted in file. And, the description of the return special built-in utility says that it will cause the shell to stop executing the current function or dot script. |
|
(0000376)
Konrad_Schwarz (reporter)
2010-01-18 08:01
|
This change would be purely for the reader's convenience.
I agree that the current version of the standard is complete. Is "Editorial"/"Clarification Requested" not the right classification for such a change request? |
|
(0000379)
nick (manager)
2010-01-21 16:47
|
In austin-group-l:archive/latest/13351 Konrad Schwarz says:
In POSIX, "return" is defined solely for dot scripts and shell functions.
Given its limited scope, I think there is a certain justification for
referring to it from those two scopes.
And indeed, 2.8.5, "Function Definition Command", does mention the special effect
of return: "If the special built-in _return_ is executed in the
_compound-command_, the function completes [...]."
I also just noticed that the "return" NAME section currently reads
"return from a function". This could be extended, e.g., to
"return from a function or script". |
|
(0000380)
msbrown (manager)
2010-01-21 17:10
edited on: 2010-01-21 17:12
|
Page 2342 line 74074 add
(add a cross reference to return special built-in utility to the See Also list)
Page 2356 line 74480 add to the See Also list references to:
Section 2.9.5 Function Definition Command
dot special built-in
Page 2324 line 73400 after the word return add:
(a cross-reference to the return special built in utility)
p 2355 l74432 add to the end of the line:
"or dot script"
|
|