Paul Dufresne wrote: > So as I understand: "set +e" make sure that it will NOT exit > script because of the non-zero expr results. Which seems ok.
Aha - you're right. I didn't notice that it was <set +e, set -e>, not the reverse order. Thanks for pointing that out.
Paul Dufresne wrote:
> So as I understand: "set +e" make sure that it will NOT exit
> script because of the non-zero expr results. Which seems ok.
Aha - you're right. I didn't notice that it was <set +e, set -e>,
not the reverse order. Thanks for pointing that out.