On 4/17/19 12:45 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:51:17 -0400
> From: Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu>
> Message-ID: <ec013fee-9397-651c-62aa-22d85802c...@case.edu>
>
> | But that's not what I'm claiming. I'm observing that the behavior you
> | cited from the historical Bourne shell, the option you said Geoff forgot,
> | is not present in either of the reference implementations. As such, it
> | doesn't much matter, and isn't what the standard is suggesting is
> | conformant.
>
> Oh, I see I am (as usual) apparently not being very clear.
>
> My position is that the standard says nothing at all about what
> should be output for a trap that was ignored in a non-interactive
> shell at startup, when the "trap" command is given later.
I'm still going to let Geoff defend his position, since the debate
so far has mostly been about different positions about what the standard
says.
My point here is that it doesn't matter what the historical Bourne shell
did. The debate should be why the standard (apparently) departed from the
reference implementations' behavior. (And it did that early on; the
language about interactive shells being able to trap signals ignored on
shell startup was in the very early drafts.)
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
