On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Marc Chantreux wrote:
> hello Eric,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:43:39AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > The Austin Group has been asked whether future POSIX should include
> > the sponge(1) utility
> 
> thanks for sharing this very good news. I didn't know about the Austin
> Group either so you made my day.

Sorry for not answering sooner,

> 
> do you know a way to file a request to them? I really would like to
> suggest the behavior of most of the shells to be adopted as a POSIX
> behavior: no need to write a counpound expression expression to declare
> a function so
> 
> ll() ls -l "$@"
> 
> would be the same as
> 
> ll() { ls -l "$@" }
> 
> so maybe people would stop using alias to to such things and then
> complain when they discover they don't understand what alias is like in
> 
> assert() {
>       echo "I will $*"
>       "$@"
> }
> 
> which fails with aliases

Proposals for changes to POSIX can be submitted at
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/.  For this particular request, it may
be worth checking the existing POSIX grammar at
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_19_10
which shows

compound_command : brace_group
                 | subshell
                 | for_clause
                 | case_clause
                 | if_clause
                 | while_clause
                 | until_clause
                 ;
...
function_body    : compound_command                /* Apply rule 9 */
                 | compound_command redirect_list  /* Apply rule 9 */
                 ;

which does not include your desired syntax, so your bug report should
include what the updated grammar should look like.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libguestfs.org


Reply via email to