On 2016-09-09 10:32:10 -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> So since the whole reason for the interpretation is that the wording was
> bad and shells behaved differently, there can't be any conclusions
> drawn from it. It's a defect in the standard. However...
>
> The text in issue 8 was supposed to capture the original intent of issue 7,
> even if the text in issue 7 didn't do a good job of expressing it. If you
> believe this, the construct is unspecified.
OK. But if this was a defect in the standard, shouldn't the correction
(at least some minimal correction) have been done in an Issue 7 TC?
> > And one also has:
> >
> > "For the four varieties of parameter expansion that provide for
> > substring processing (see [xref to 2.6.2 Parameter Expansion]),
> > within the string of characters from an enclosed "${" to the
> > matching '}', the double-quotes within which the expansion occurs
> > shall have no effect on the handling of any special characters."
> >
> > There's no unspecified behavior concerning the double quotes.
> > So, what about the following?
> >
> > echo "${foo#'a"b'"}"
>
> In this case, it seems to me that the single quotes are special, [...]
I cannot see in Issue 7 how they are supposed to be special here.
And
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=221
doesn't seem to change anything. At least, they are *not* special
in dash 0.5.8-2.3 and in BusyBox v1.22.1 sh (ash):
$ foo=abcdef; echo "${foo#'ab'}"
abcdef
but the other shells regard them as special:
$ foo=abcdef; echo "${foo#'ab'}"
cdef
So, is this also unspecified like double quotes? Or should it
be specified that they are special, in which case, dash / ash
are buggy?
--
Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
