[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Scripting support (PATCH)

From: Yoshinori K. Okuji
Subject: Re: Scripting support (PATCH)
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:45:19 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.7.2

On Sunday 30 October 2005 10:04 pm, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > I really don't like that each command has to explicitly set RESULT. As
> > you note, it would be better if the return code from the command were
> > automatically placed into the status environment variable.
> Most command return grub_err_t.  The only commands that matter for us
> are commands like `['.  Would you propose every commands returns an
> int and that on function return grub_errno is checked?

I agree with Hollis. It should be automatic. What is wrong with setting $? to 
grub_errno? Isn't it enough to see if it is GRUB_ERR_NONE or not?

BTW, you added lsb.c, but I don't like this very much. On Unix, the testing 
command is "test", and "[" is just an aliases, isn't it? I prefer to use 
commands/test.c, and register "[" as another name of test.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]