"shwaresyst via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
<austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote:
>
> I agree more clarification is desirable. The reason I see as why the function
> isn't executed is it may be treating it as an invoke of "sh -c ls", because
> ls is a function, but this new sh does not inherit that definition so it
> looks on path instead and finds the utility.
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2020 Thorsten Glaser via austin-group-l at The Open
> Group <austin-group-l@opengroup.org; miros-m...@mirbsd.org> wrote:
> Hi *,
Hi,
here is where the original mail ended for me. Interesting that you did get
more content. Is there any idea, why I received only the first line from the
original mail?
...
> I???ve got a report in IRC by a user who spotted a cross-shell difference.
>
> In my opinion, the invocation???
>
> sh -c 'ls() { echo meow; }; exec ls'
>
> ??? is supposed to output "meow\n and return to the caller with a zero
> errorlevel.
>
> Some shells execve() the ls(1) binary instead.
Thorsten,
do you know any shell besides mksh and zsh that call the function with this
command?
>From my understanding, calling the function is a bug.
Important for me is that the Bourne Shell, ksh88 and ksh93 call ls(1), so this
is historically correct and it was not seen as a problem by David Korn.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
