-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change wording of EOF behaviour in stage_1 #5
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This seems reasonable. I'll merge, if you don't mind making the following modifications: preserve the period at the end of the list; include the rationale in your PR description in the body of the comment, since I think it gives some useful context. Thanks! (Also, it would be nice to give a clearer error from |
Sounds good, will do 👍 |
Do you mind if I overwrite the original commit to include the description? |
Overwriting the original commit is exactly the correct behavior. This change should only be one commit. |
So, I looked into providing some feedback if the test times out on ^D. I was planning to do this by adding a It seems like right now, the return code for It seems like the simplest solution to this is to change the return code of What do you think I should do about this? |
I think it would be ok, in this case, to make |
Oh, and if you do make this patch, I would write the message as
and treat it as such. Heck, now that I think about it, I wonder if I shouldn't even make it explicit in the tests and potentially require ☠ at the end of every script. |
While this is probably less technically correct, I was a bit confused by the original wording. I think people who are building a shell will implicitly assume the "repeat" part of it, and explicitly saying "exit" makes the behaviour that is expected make more sense to me.
* Adds print statement to test harness to notify when it sends ^D. * Adds a print statement to timeout.c to notify when a script is killed by timeout.
While this is probably less technically correct, I was a bit confused by the original wording. I think people who are building a shell will implicitly assume the "repeat" part of it, and explicitly saying "exit" makes the behaviour that is expected make more sense to me.