A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1460 ====================================================================== Reported By: geoffclare Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1460 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: Geoff Clare Organization: The Open Group User Reference: Section: hash Page Number: 2847 Line Number: 93806 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2021-03-16 16:53 UTC Last Modified: 2021-03-19 16:03 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: hash implementations differ when a utility is not found ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0005292) kre (reporter) - 2021-03-19 16:03 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1460#c5292 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1460#c5287: No I don't think 2.9.1 about this needs to change, but why is not a topic for here, so I will discuss that on the mailing list. However I still believe the relevant text in the hash command application usage section, even if you were right and it follows directly from 2.9.1 (with which I disagree) is inappropriate and should be deleted. One would add an application usage hint like that if there were some defect in the command being described, but an alternative, known working, method was available. Eg: if it were unspecified whether "hash -r" worked or not for clearing the hash table, but assigning to PATH always did, then it would be reasonable to have a note like that. It would also be reasonable if the alternative method were cumbersone, or could have other side effects But "hash -r" is not unspecified, is simple, it does work to clear the hash table. But what is a new reader to believe when reading this Application Usage section and seeing an alternative *portable* method to clear the hash table? Perhaps "hash -r" is not portable? Better not use that then. The note, even if it were correct, sends entirely the wrong message. It isn't needed. Doing PATH=$PATH is the wrong way even if it worked (in addition to clearing the hash table it also needs to expand $PATH and then do a variable assignment, which also means (as PATH is usually exported) perhaps rebuilding the exported environment for no good reason. Just delete it. On procedural issues, if you'd prefer a new bug, rather than a tack on to this one, for this specific issue, I can do that, but in that case, please indicate whether you would prefer it filed against 7 TC2 or 8 D1.1 (or something else). Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2021-03-16 16:53 geoffclare New Issue 2021-03-16 16:53 geoffclare Name => Geoff Clare 2021-03-16 16:53 geoffclare Organization => The Open Group 2021-03-16 16:53 geoffclare Section => hash 2021-03-16 16:53 geoffclare Page Number => 2847 2021-03-16 16:53 geoffclare Line Number => 93806 2021-03-16 16:53 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2021-03-16 18:22 joerg Note Added: 0005277 2021-03-16 19:01 shware_systems Note Added: 0005278 2021-03-17 03:05 kre Note Added: 0005279 2021-03-18 09:38 geoffclare Note Added: 0005280 2021-03-18 18:29 kre Note Added: 0005284 2021-03-18 18:32 kre Note Edited: 0005284 2021-03-18 18:52 kre Note Added: 0005285 2021-03-18 19:00 kre Note Edited: 0005285 2021-03-19 10:57 geoffclare Note Added: 0005287 2021-03-19 10:57 geoffclare Note Edited: 0005287 2021-03-19 16:03 kre Note Added: 0005292 ======================================================================
