Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote in <igfskjq0xfsux7kn9xou1hshrxm01coa7lo2gfrq...@www.austingroupbugs.net>: |The following issue has been SUBMITTED. |====================================================================== |https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1915 |====================================================================== ... |Desired Action: |Please clarify whether POSIX *really* meant what it says in *all* cases, \ |whether |the text is an omission of taking over application behavior into the first |standard version.
To clarify what i mean. I do not track shells, so i do not have a real overview of the situation. I wonder whether the ksh88 behavior, which, as far as i know, was the template for the POSIX sh standardization, was cast in standard stone in an incomplete way, whether it was an omission by then. In which case the standard should be extended to cover this special case? Or, whether only certain shells deviate (for long, maybe forever). Since among these is the likely most important, and definitely most widely used implementation, it seems to be well worth at least noting this deviation in the standard, as it is not covered by the "may" on the removal of empty fields. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
