cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [ast-users] ksh93: IFS question
--------
> yes, but this does not work for IFS. any chance here? of course I don't
> want to argue against the standard (silently use default value if IFS
> unset), but at least the combination of "if IFS is unset, use default IFS
> value" & "after unset, IFS content is printed/reported and treated (by the
> above construct, e.g.) as null (which -- if this were the real value of
> IFS -- would switch off field splitting completely) seems inconsistent to
> me: either it should really be detectable by the above construct ("IFS is
> really unset and the handling of this case (use default value for
> splitting) is explained in the standard") or an unset attempt on IFS
> should explicitly set it to the default (I think the latter is not really
> possible/against standard, but the former should be?).
>
> or am I wrong?
>
The fact that ${IFS+abc} gives abc when IFS is unset is a bug which
I will fix.
David Korn
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
ast-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
