Harald van Dijk <a...@gigawatt.nl> wrote, on 01 Feb 2019: > > On 01/02/2019 09:53, Geoff Clare wrote: > >I agree that's an improvement, but I see one slight problem with it: it > >says "tokens previously read from the input" but the previous tokens > >could have come from an alias substitution. Here's an attempt to fix > >that: > > > > * the TOKEN could be parsed as the command name word of a simple > > command (see [xref to Section 2.10]), based on this TOKEN and > > the tokens (if any) that preceded it, but ignoring whether any > > subsequent characters would allow that > > Good point, that looks better.
I have updated note 4214 with this change and the other two changes discussed in this sub-thread. I also added the foo((123)) example to the application usage section on the alias page. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
