Wait, isn’t it the other way around? I thought ; only executed the next command if the previous one succeeded, and && executed the next command regardless of exit status.
Ah yes you’re right, had to look it up to see for myself. It’s weird because i remember specifically changing some of my &&s for ; instead because i wanted it to not continue if exit wasn’t zero, but i must’ve misread it at the time. Time to change it back i guess lol.
Wait, isn’t it the other way around? I thought ; only executed the next command if the previous one succeeded, and && executed the next command regardless of exit status.
Partly right in bash:
set -e; echo 1; echo 2;is the same as
echo 1 && echo 2So if you see the
-ein a script, it’s to keep the function clean.No, OP is correct, && only continues on exit 0. || For anything but zero, ; just chains another command.
Ah yes you’re right, had to look it up to see for myself. It’s weird because i remember specifically changing some of my &&s for ; instead because i wanted it to not continue if exit wasn’t zero, but i must’ve misread it at the time. Time to change it back i guess lol.
It makes more sense if you think of semicolons like other programming languages like Java and C use it.
foo(); bar();But those languages allow
foo(); bar();as well. Then&&works like a normal short circuited expression (with side effects).