Re: Scripting support (PATCH)

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

"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.

> 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.

You are right.  I am not that familiar with shell scripting, so there
might be more stupid mistakes you could all catch.  Please tell me
about them.

Thanks,
Marco