From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1EWTQF-00068O-FO for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:45:36 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EWTQC-00067Y-6H for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:45:32 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EWTQA-00066i-Jp for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:45:30 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EWTQ8-00066Q-D8 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:45:30 -0500 Received: from [212.85.152.101] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EWTQ5-0008Nj-MC for grub-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:45:28 -0500 Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A5C3C777501 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:47:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by ASSP-nospam ; 31 Oct 05 06:47:41 -0000 From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:45:19 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <87u0f0t30k.fsf@student.han.nl> <871x22hg2x.fsf@student.han.nl> In-Reply-To: <871x22hg2x.fsf@student.han.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510310745.19549.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: Scripting support (PATCH) X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:45:32 -0000 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. Okuji