Robert Elz wrote, on 20 Mar 2021: > > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:29:34 +0000 > From: "Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group" > <austin-group-l@opengroup.org> > Message-ID: <84ab3a1c-6445-b73f-8ab2-a92d9fd3d...@gigawatt.nl> > > | This is technically true, but if there is no conforming shell that > | implements 2.9.1 other than by clearing the hash table (see below) and > | no reason for an implementation to do anything other than clearing the > | hash table, the standard may as well just go ahead and require that. > > That would require a new bug report, one which I would oppose as being > unnecessarily over specifying implementation methods. What is there now > is fine.
As per my latest note in bug 1460, the reason this text in 2.9.1 does not talk about the hash table is because hash was part of the XSI option in Issue 6. In fact, the text hasn't changed since POSIX.2-1992 which did not include hash. So when 2.9.1 talks about the need to repeat a PATH search, it is written in those terms because it could not (at the time it was written) talk about the hash table or the hash utility. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
