Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote, on 17 Jul 2017: > > On 7/16/17 2:47 PM, Martijn Dekker wrote: > > > On the one hand, exec "shall replace the shell with /command/ without > > creating a new process". A shell function is included in the definition > > of "command" (ref: 2.9.1 Simple Commands) and so this ought to work with > > 'exec', in which case every shell except zsh and pdksh/mksh is broken. > > It seems clear that `command' in the description refers to the word > `command' in the usage synopsis, not one of the shell's syntactic elements. > This is common historical manual practice. Your explanation is the least > plausible reason for departing from historical practice.
Yes, in the description it is italicised and refers to the operand in the synopsis. However, the NAME section says "execute commands" and this use of "commands" could be interpreted as invoking the defined term. As discussed earlier, this would be contrary to the intended behaviour. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
