On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:01:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Firstly, should we be pointing to the SuS instead of POSIX
> (there is work going on a new version of the SUS), since it is open,
> and readily available on th 'net, and people can readily see it (as
> opposed to people who have shelled out $500 for a version)?
Sounds good.
> Secondly, why should we explicity carve out an exception for
> test -a and -o, rather than saying that the XSI extensions need be
> supported? The X/Open System Interface is the core application
> programming interface for C and sh programming for systems conforming
> to the Single UNIX Specification.
Don't forget ( ) in that case, they go hand in hand with -a and -o.
> + <item><tt>local</tt> to create a scoped variable must be
> + supported; however, <tt>local</tt> may or may not preserve
> + the variable value from an outer scope and may or may not
> + support arguments more complex than simple variable
> + names</item>
>
> Perhaps a example/footnote needs be inserted here? If I were
> writing a script, it would help to be reminded that I can't really
> depend on very much of the semantics of local from any specific
> implementation.
>
> fname () {
> local a # keep it simple
> a='' # initialize the variable
> .... use a ...
> }
> is the only safe way to do use a local variable.
Fine by me.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
