On 3/11/20 12:15 PM, Dirk Fieldhouse wrote:
>
>> All shells I am aware of print foo and bar
>
> The discussion seems to have confirmed that this is the general existing
> practice, and not just in the few cases I tested, but IMO only a shell
> implementer could see the suggested behaviour of these examples as
> baffling, based on the wording of the standard (not to mention "man sh",
> etc, so I won't).
If it's the wording that implies possible behavior that no shell
implements, let's fix the wording.
> The question is what, if any, rewording of the standard should be made.
> There are plenty of choices for better designed scripting languages, so
> arguably making the specification agree with existing practice would be
> an acceptable resolution. The example of DR 842 for 'break' and
> 'continue' shows that this should not be seen as an unnecessary change.
We can use 842 as a model for the changes. Someone needs to propose new
wording that's comprehensive enough to cover the different cases.
--
``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/
