"shwaresyst via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
<austin-grou...@opengroup.org> wrote:
>
> I agree more clarification is desirable. The reason I see as why the function
> isn't executed is it may be treating it as an invoke of "sh -c ls", because
> ls is a function, but this new sh does not inherit that definition so it
> looks on path instead and finds the utility.
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 Thorsten Glaser via austin-group-l at The Open
> Group <austin-grou...@opengroup.org; miros-mksh@mirbsd.org> wrote:
> Hi *,
Hi,
here is where the original mail ended for me. Interesting that you did get
more content. Is there any idea, why I received only the first line from the
original mail?
...
> I???ve got a report in IRC by a user who spotted a cross-shell difference.
>
> In my opinion, the invocation???
>
> sh -c 'ls() { echo meow; }; exec ls'
>
> ??? is supposed to output "meow\n and return to the caller with a zero
> errorlevel.
>
> Some shells execve() the ls(1) binary instead.
Thorsten,
do you know any shell besides mksh and zsh that call the function with this
command?
From my understanding, calling the function is a bug.
Important for me is that the Bourne Shell, ksh88 and ksh93 call ls(1), so this
is historically correct and it was not seen as a problem by David Korn.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
