On Mi, 06 Apr 2016, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > For historic reasons, "$@" evaluates to a single "" if there were no
> > arguments at all, introducing a spurious new empty argument.
> > Possibly the thinking was that something like "$@" should never
> > vanish; after all "$x" will produce an single empty string if $x is
> > empty. The ${1+} simply avoids using "$@" at all unless there are
> > arguments, producing correct behaviour in the no-arguments case.
>
> What shell is that? I've *never* encountered such a bug (well, I'd
> classify it as such at this point) and I do quite a bit of shell
> scripting.
According to Sven Maschecks website
http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/bourne_args/
,----
| These shells behave the old way and need ${1+"$@"}:
|
| Certainly: /bin/sh on 7th edition (aka Version 7). And thus also /bin/sh on
original BSDs, until these shipped the Almquist shell (after 4.3BSD-Reno)
| HP-UX 8, 9 /bin/sh, HP-UX 10.x, 11.x /usr/old/bin/sh (as /bin/sh has become a
ksh)
| OSF1/V4 and V5 aka Tru64 /bin/sh
| Ultrix /bin/sh and /bin/sh5
| Sinix 5.20 /bin/sh in both the "ucb" and the "sie" universe
`----
so basically, not relevant anymore.
regards,
Christian
--
The Martian landed his saucer in Manhattan, and immediately upon
emerging was approached by a panhandler. "Mister," said the man, "can I
have a quarter?"
The Martian asked, "What's a quarter?"
The panhandler thought a minute, brightened, then said, "You're
right! Can I have a dollar?"
