From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 20:32:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [BUG] git-submodule has bash-ism?
Message-ID: <20160601203243.GA15490@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160601202852.GP1355@john.keeping.me.uk>

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 09:28:53PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:

> > So either way, I do not think "local variable names" that breaks
> > &&-chain can be justified.  Either the variable must be localized
> > for the script to work correctly, in which case we want local with
> > &&-chaining, or it does not have to, in which case we do not want to
> > have "local" that is not necessary, no?
> 
> Absolutely, my original point should have been prefixed with: I wonder
> if the reason we haven't had any problems reported is because ...
> 
> And we've got lucky because the clobbering of global variables happens
> not to matter in these particular cases.

Ah, OK, what you were saying makes much more sense to me now, then.

Even on a shell like ksh93 that does not grok local at all, there is a
good chance that nobody ever looked at the "-v" output for the test,
which would not have been failing, to see that it was complaining.

So I agree we can't really take "no problems reported" on these existing
cases as any kind of data point.

-Peff