On 7/17/17 11:17 AM, Geoff Clare wrote:
> 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.
I understand that standards are all about precision, but that would require
a very creative reading. The simplest explanation is usually correct.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
