On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:24:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:05:12PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > So a situation where we have absolutely no idea if and what POSIX
> > > specifies about something should be quite rare, and I'd be satisfied
> > > to leave this b
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:21:55PM +0200, Patrik Hagglund wrote:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > This misses the point. The phrase being quoted here is _not_ from
> > 1003.2-1992, it's from the XPG/4 webpage describing the shell. It may
> > also be in 1003.2-1992 but can anyone prove that?
>
> The q
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 10:14:59PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Zack Weinberg schrieb:
> > > Further, "identical behaviour" seems a bit strict and hard to
> > > prove to me, OTOH I don't know POSIX well, thus I have no idea
> > > what this would apply to.
> >
> > It's an empirical thing. You write
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:05:12PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > So a situation where we have absolutely no idea if and what POSIX
> > specifies about something should be quite rare, and I'd be satisfied
> > to leave this battle to shell implementers. If we come into a
> > double mill, backing o
> On 21-May-01, 05:22 (CDT), Patrik Hagglund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see what you mean by "the initial value of the IFS
> > variable". Is there anything that is unspecified for field
> > splitting in IEEE Std. 1003.2-1992? Isn't "If IFS is not set, the
> > shell shall behave as if t
Zack Weinberg schrieb:
> > Further, "identical behaviour" seems a bit strict and hard to
> > prove to me, OTOH I don't know POSIX well, thus I have no idea
> > what this would apply to.
>
> It's an empirical thing. You write a test script, and you see what it
> does with each shell, and if it doe
> > I will reiterate, however, that the issue from my point of view is
> > that the standard is not specific at all, and even where it is, it is
> > not readily available, so how does anyone know what it specifies?
>
> First thing, in all your proposals is the sentence that says that POSIX is
> ve
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 11:03:14AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 04:43:11AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 09:13:31PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > I'd like to tighten this up a bit by requiring that /bin/sh adhere to
> > > the consensus of im
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 08:03:04PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Hi
>
> Zack Weinberg schrieb:
> > I apologize for the long delay in responding, I was sick.
>
> Bless you.
Thank you.
> > The POSIX standard for shells leaves important areas
> > unspecified. In the interest of minimizing t
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:25:33AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-May-01, 05:22 (CDT), Patrik Hagglund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see what you mean by "the initial value of the IFS
> > variable". Is there anything that is unspecified for field
> > splitting in IEEE Std. 1003.2-1
Hi
Zack Weinberg schrieb:
> I apologize for the long delay in responding, I was sick.
Bless you.
> Perhaps we could rephrase the proposal in terms of uniformity between
> shells included in Debian and considered to be suitable alternatives
> for /bin/sh (ignoring the fact that there is no /bin/s
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 04:43:11AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 09:13:31PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > I'd like to tighten this up a bit by requiring that /bin/sh adhere to
> > the consensus of implementations, where POSIX leaves things
> > unspecified.
>
> I disagr
I apologize for the long delay in responding, I was sick.
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 08:23:44PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
>
> Can we change the last sentence in:
>
> > ! The standard shell interpreter `/bin/sh' is a
> > ! symbolic link to a POSIX compatible shell. Since the POSIX
> > !
13 matches
Mail list logo
