* Ted Pavlic [Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:11:32 -0500]: >> That looks ugly to me. Any reason we shouldn't just "set +u" at the top of >> the script? > As already discussed, because the script must be sourced, then the "set > +u" has global scope. > I suppose that the option could be tested and then reset as appropriate > at the end of the script. That does not help, because appart from being global, it of course takes effect at run time. In other words, it doesn't matter if set -u is active or not at function definition time, but at function invoation time. > (note: for some reason Mercurial's bash completion script does not have > this problem; they use $1 directly without bash complaining) Because (from a quick look) their completion script never expands a variable which is not known to be set. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org A hacker does for love what other would not do for money. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
