Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Martijn Dekker wrote: > Op 02-08-17 om 22:17 schreef Thorsten Glaser: > > Robert Elz dixit: > > > >> The only way that the standard will ever say that "exec fn" is possible > >> (exec builtin is supposed to be possible now, as (almost) all builtins > >> are supposed to have

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Whether ?echo? is a builtin or not is an implementation detail. > Heck, things like ?true?, ?false?, ? are (and others can be) > implemented in some operating systems by symlinking them to the > shell executable (either ksh93 *or* mksh? not even

Re: clarification needed: shell 'exec' + function (builtin, ???)

Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > this is an iconv(3)-related error that was fixed in later version > of the mailer you use. The very error came up on the ML this > year[1], basically you use LATIN1 on your box, as could be > expected, but Thorsten is known to be a Unicode character > "junkie", so to

Re: clarification needed: shell 'exec' + function (builtin, ???)

"shwaresyst via austin-group-l at The Open Group" 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

Re: clarification needed: shell 'exec' + function (builtin, ???)

"Thorsten Glaser via austin-group-l at The Open Group" wrote: > This is because m4.opengroup.org runs qmail, the arsehole under the MTAs, > which auto-converted the mail from quoted-printable to 8bit, sending it > as 8bit even to MTAs that don't offer 8BITMIME (I configured my sendmail > not to