Command Substitution: Can you return data instead of exit codes in Bash? | #3 Practical Bash

[@bernhardkern629]

yay, my first youtube comment, just to tell you that your video series is great. Watched the https/tls video and landed in your bash series.

[@kubucation]

Thanks! I feel honored to receive your first ever youtube comment :-)

[@ernestogutierrez7877]

Had I known function return statements where meant for returning exit codes (0-255) back when I started coding bash scripts, I would have saved myself a lot of troubleshooting time :S
Great video mate!

[@mithunmanoharmithun]

This series is awesome. Thanks !

[@blank-vw2sb]

Love the series. Thanks!!

[@jamesw6949]

Introduced me to shellcheck, thanks!

[@kubucation]

And you just gave me the idea to create a video about shellcheck. Thanks :)

[@jamesw6949]

@@kubucation :)

[@loveanimals-0197]

What if you had multiple echo statements within that called function?

[@kubucation]

All output that is usually sent to stdout would be caught. A single or multiple echo statements don't make a difference. We only see an echo statement as a "unit" because it automatically appends a new line (
) at the end of the line. However, that's just a default setting and you can in fact not add a new line by using "echo -n foo". Similarly the new line would just be caught by the command substitution along with the remaining output.

[@soufianta8374]

Hi, this is one of the weird things I took time to understand. Actually, bash shouldn’t be compared to other languages (data types). Bash was supposed to run external binaries/commands that do their stuff and binaries don’t need to play with return values of other binaires. Nice video btw

[@VoltVandal]

thanks, very understandable

[@kubucation]

thanks a lot, very glad to hear :)

[@fuseteam]

part 3?