A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
Reported By:                Mark_Galeck
Assigned To:                
Project:                    1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2
Issue ID:                   1091
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Error
Severity:                   Editorial
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     New
Name:                       Mark Galeck 
User Reference:              
Section:                    2.10.1 Shell Grammar Lexical Conventions 
Page Number:                2375 
Line Number:                75895-75896 
Interp Status:              --- 
Final Accepted Text:         
Date Submitted:             2016-10-18 11:55 UTC
Last Modified:              2016-10-19 05:51 UTC
Summary:                    Some "WORD tokens" do not have "the associated

 (0003430) kre (reporter) - 2016-10-19 05:51
I think the issue is not what should be done, but when it should be done.
Most of your (Mark's) points have been about adding precision to the spec.
Here, you're suggesting removing it (though probably not intentionally).

Eg: to use the for loop example, the text in says ...

     First, the list of words following in shall be expanded to generate
     a list of items. Then, the ...

That's certainly probably sufficient to say what should be done, though it
(without any assistance) would be a little wishy washy on exactly which
expansions are expected to apply.

But it says to do it "first" - which clearly means before executing the
list of commands with the var set to each value in turn (that's the "Then,
the ..." that I didn't bother quoting as it isn't directly relevant here.

But it puts no initial bound on exactly when the expansion should happen,
just provided it happens before the list is (repeatedly) executed.  With
only those words, an implementation may feel free to expand the words as
they are parsed, for example.

That's what the text under question is trying to avoid - it makes it clear
that the expansion is to happen as late as possible before the values are
needed - and while the words it uses to say that might not be the best
possible, and could perhaps be improved, simply deleting them is not the

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
2016-10-18 11:55 Mark_Galeck    New Issue                                    
2016-10-18 11:55 Mark_Galeck    Name                      => Mark Galeck     
2016-10-18 11:55 Mark_Galeck    Section                   => 2.10.1 Shell
Grammar Lexical Conventions
2016-10-18 11:55 Mark_Galeck    Page Number               => 2375            
2016-10-18 11:55 Mark_Galeck    Line Number               => 75895-75896     
2016-10-18 14:48 geoffclare     Note Added: 0003419                          
2016-10-18 15:04 Mark_Galeck    Note Added: 0003421                          
2016-10-18 15:28 Mark_Galeck    Note Added: 0003425                          
2016-10-18 15:55 geoffclare     Note Added: 0003428                          
2016-10-19 04:44 Mark_Galeck    Note Added: 0003429                          
2016-10-19 05:51 kre            Note Added: 0003430                          

Reply via email to