also sprach Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> [2009.07.03.1952 +0200]: > There is, in fact a de facto standard, but the bash4 behavior is > what the Bourne and Korn shells have always done. In fact, the only > way Martin's statement is true is if "all other shells" means "dash", > since that's the only other shell I found that doesn't apply set -u to > $@ and $*. > > A partial list of shells that honor set -u when expanding $@ and $*: > > bash4 > all versions of the bourne shell from v7 to svr4.2 > all versions of the korn shell > pdksh and variants like mksh and posh > ash and its descendents except dash
zsh. > > We can debate this issue ad mortem infinitumque (but let's not). > > Fact is that this is a regression, which upstream camouflaged as > > a bug fix, when instead there should have been a deprecation > > period. Expecting everyone to change their scripts to work > > around bash's eclectic interpretation of $@/$* is not the way > > forward. > > Beautiful language, but incorrect. The current bash4 behavior is > not an "eclectic interpretation," but consistent with how shells > have historically behaved. Fine, if the standards group comes up with a standard on this, by all means. But there really ought to be a deprecation period. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madd...@d.o> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
