Joerg Schilling <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote, on 18 Apr 2019:
>
> Geoff Clare <g...@opengroup.org> wrote:
>
> > Since an attempt to trap such a signal must fail or be silently
> > ignored, shells in which the following script, when executed with
> > SIGINT ignored:
> >
> > trap some_command INT
> > trap
> >
> > produces output that indicates the action for the INT condition is
> > some_command clearly do not conform to this requirement.
>
> OK, so if I understand you correctly, this means that the original Bourne
> Shell
> from 1977 does not conform (even though it did not change the trap setup for
> ignored signals but prints a change with "trap"), but the SVr2 and newer
> version are OK, since they do not output anything for "trap" in such a case?
The SVr2 behaviour is OK as far as this initial part of my "chain of
reasoning" email is concerned, but later on (in the part that says
"given the above it is the only behaviour that makes sense") I argue
that for:
trap - INT
trap
the script should not produce output (or lack of it) that indicates the
default action for INT; this would apply equally to the some_command
case.
--
Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org>
The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
