Re: bug: return doesn't accept negative numbers

[Linda Walsh]

Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 8/7/11 6:03 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> > Bash itself is inconsistent in that it accepts exit values the same as
> > every other
> > program, but limits return values to a particular subset.
>
> Bash accepts any value you want to give to `return' and strips it to
> 8 bits, as the standard allows.  Read the error message closely: it says
> `invalid option'.  return doesn't accept any options
====

        Does 'exit' accept any options?   No.  It doesn't complain.


        I would assert, that 'return', since it accepts no options, cannot
have an 'invalid option', (there are no valid options), therefore, any
argument to should attempt to be parsed as a number.

        Else, I would ask: If -1 is an invalid option, what are valid
options...well, as you said, it accepts no options, so it shouldn't be
possible for it to return a "validation" on the acceptability of something
as an argument -- as the option parser should never be called on it any more
than it is called on exit.

        As a nice enhancement, you could just default to accepting any
expression that returned a number (i.e. treat it as the interior of
a (()), vs. requiring that one use $(((expr))) as is now acceptable,
and explicitly mention that "return $status+0x80" is a bash enhancement...


        Of course to return -1, apparently one can also use
return $(-1)...there are plenty of ways to get around it...
that wasn't the point.

        if shouldn't be trying to parse options any more than 'exit' does.
example of a valid option

        It's not about "getting around the bug" -- it's that it shouldn't
be checking for options in the first place!