On 8/5/22 21:49, Koichi Murase wrote:
2022年8月3日(水) 21:19 Robert E. Griffith <b...@junga.com>:
That was an interesting read. The illuminating point for me was the
statement to the effect of "the POSIX specification is not meant to
describe what it correct or rational, but what historically has been
implemented so that existing scripts will remain unbroken". This makes
me appreciate Chet's position more.
Could you explain your thinking in a little more detail?
All that I was saying is what I appreciate more now is that in something
as widely used and in various ways as bash is, correctness is not the
final determination. There is some 'law' I heard quoted saying
something like -- any API that is widely used will have every aspect,
both intention and unintentional, exploited and relied upon. A good
example is the 'using history to parse strings' solution that you
provided to my question in the other thread yesterday. Because of the
stability of bash we can use that without a lot of risk that the next
version is going to break it.
We all have benefited from the stability of bash but sometimes that
stability comes with a cost.
kre makes a good argument for the correctness of A in his response last
night, but I dont hear anyone arguing against the correctness of A -- I
dont think that is the point. The POSIX language is broken and before
its fixed, it might be more prudent to wait to make yet another change
concerning this feature to bash.
Personally, I would change it to A now but I am glad that there is
inertial that has to be overcome before a change to existing behavior is
made.
--BobG
