linuxmemes

The issue with set -e is that it's hideously broken and inconsistent. Let me copy the examples from the wiki I linked.

Or, "so you think set -e is OK, huh?"

Exercise 1: why doesn't this example print anything?

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
i=0
let i++
echo "i is $i"

Exercise 2: why does this one sometimes appear to work? In which versions of bash does it work, and in which versions does it fail?

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
i=0
((i++))
echo "i is $i"

Exercise 3: why aren't these two scripts identical?

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir
echo survived 

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
f
echo survived

Exercise 4: why aren't these two scripts identical?

set -e
f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
f
echo survived

set -e
f() { if test -d nosuchdir; then echo no dir; fi; }
f
echo survived

Exercise 5: under what conditions will this fail?

set -e
read -r foo < configfile

And now, back to your regularly scheduled comment reply.

set -e would absolutely be more elegant if it worked in a way that was easy to understand. I would be shouting its praises from my rooftop if it could make Bash into less of a pile of flaming plop. Unfortunately , set -e is, by necessity, a labyrinthian mess of fucked up hacks.

Let me leave you with a allegory about set -e copied directly from that same wiki page. It's too long for me to post it in this comment, so I'll respond to myself.