On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 15:18 -0500, Stephen Oberholtzer wrote: > (2) If it absolutely, positively has to be available in POSIX, how > can I submit a proposal for the inclusion of 'pipefail' as an option? No need. pipefail has been added to the POSIX standard although it won't appear until the next version I believe. See: http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=789#c4103 for the final accepted wording changes.
Re: Proposal: set -o pipefail
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Proposal: set -o pipefail
- From: Paul Smith <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 15:30:51 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CAD_xR9dZmyJ4+14-0aKB4TxoPzMsWzpbhdsv=R6tw6NT2uHG4Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Organization: Please remain calm--I may be mad but I am a professional!
- References: <CAD_xR9dZmyJ4+14-0aKB4TxoPzMsWzpbhdsv=R6tw6NT2uHG4Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References:
- Proposal: set -o pipefail
- From: Stephen Oberholtzer
- Proposal: set -o pipefail
- Prev by Date: Re: Proposal: set -o pipefail
- Next by Date: Re: Proposal: set -o pipefail
- Previous by thread: Re: Proposal: set -o pipefail
- Next by thread: [PATCH] Use explicit '%s' when formatting a signal name
- Index(es):
 |