[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?
From: |
Scott Bronson |
Subject: |
Re: Second trap invocation is ignored? |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:27:36 -0700 |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> On 4/6/15 11:58 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > I'd be fine with that, but then why does "source ./foo" create a DEBUG
> > trap at the global scope the *first* time?
>
> Because there's nothing to save and restore.
Just curious: why not restore the state of emptiness that
existed before? Why treat these two states differently?
(presence of trap vs. absence of trap)
Other than this minor question, your explanation makes
total sense. Thanks Chet.
- Scott
- Second trap invocation is ignored?, Scott Bronson, 2015/04/05
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Greg Wooledge, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Eduardo A . Bustamante López, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Scott Bronson, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Eduardo A . Bustamante López, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Greg Wooledge, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Scott Bronson, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Eduardo A . Bustamante López, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Greg Wooledge, 2015/04/06
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Chet Ramey, 2015/04/10
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?,
Scott Bronson <=
- Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Chet Ramey, 2015/04/11
Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Scott Bronson, 2015/04/06
Re: Second trap invocation is ignored?, Chet Ramey, 2015/04/10