Re: bye with exit status

On 2024-11-08 12:29, Anton Ertl wrote:

mhx@iae.nl (mhx) writes:

Same as remarked by minforth: there is a exit-handler chain in
which the user can plug arbitrary routines.

 In Gforth BYE is a deferred word, with the intention that it can be
extended with cleanup actions.
 The disadvantage of this approach in connection with the non-0 exit is
that we probably also want to do the same cleanup in those cases.  The
best way to deal with that is probably the "EXIT-CODE !" approach.

I think, this variable, if it is required, should be internal.
For example:
   variable _system-exit-status  0 _system-exit-status !
   : kernel-bye ( -- never )
     ... \ other actions
     _system-exit-status @ (bye)
   ;
   defer bye  ' kernel-bye is bye
   : bye-with-status ( n -- never )
     _system-exit-status ! bye
   ;
Thus, the old interface is not changed. And `bye-with-status` also does the same cleanup sequence (if any).

Concerning the usual discussion about the name: I find that the system
is left in the error case with an uncaught THROW in script-execution
mode; in that case an exit code of 1 is returned by Gforth, so it's
not sufficient for communicating more than a binary result to the
calling script.  But I have not used non-binary exit codes for
non-Forth programs, either, and I do quite a bit of shell scripting.

Does it mean that "bye" and "bye-failure" is enough?

 In any case, while we have (BYE), I don't use it in application
programs.

As an example, when a script is used in Make, it is important to return nonzero exit status on error.
Sometimes people ask about that, for example:
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71616920/how-can-i-exit-forth-with-a-non-zero-exit-status>
--
Ruvim