Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote, on 10 Aug 2018: > > But given the way that the text is written (lines 74994-5): > > It is only field splitting or pathname expansion that can create > multiple > fields from a single word. The single exception... > > it is really hard to read it as "0 is permitted", rather it looks (at least to > me) as if it means one in, one (and in the two cases, plus the exception, "or > more") out. > > The proposed text in 1193, while different, leads to the same colclusion > (to me anyway) ... > > The shell shall create multiple fields from a single word only as a > result of field splitting, pathname expansion, or the following cases > > again, to me, that means one in, one (or more when permitted) out.
Okay, that seems like a valid point. Wouldn't simply changing "multiple fields" to "multiple fields or no fields" solve it? I will make that change to the note in bug 1193. I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute to this discussion further, as I'll be finishing for the day soon and I'm away for a week from tomorrow. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
