Re: Scripting support (PATCH)

[Marco Gerards <metgerards@student.han.nl>]

Marco Gerards <metgerards@student.han.nl> writes:

> "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <okuji@enbug.org> writes:
>
>> 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?
>
> Perhaps there is no problem with that.  I just assumed it should be an
> int.  I will make this change.

To which value should grub_err_t be set on function return in the case
of the test command?  I could add a new error `GRUB_ERR_TEST_RESULT'
and make it 1.  I would prefer some better suggestion though :).

--
Marco