On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:00:09PM +0700, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote: > I think you are missing the point. He is claiming/reporting:
Why write code that relies on the idiosyncratic behavior of a shell when it is given incorrect code? Whether bash handles incorrect code in one way or another seems pretty irrelevant, when you should fix the broken script. So, an older version of bash used to slap you down hard when you failed to quote. And a newer version doesn't; it simply acts as though you had given the quotes, which allows sloppy code to continue to be written. One might argue that the newer versions should continue to slap down the broken code, so that programmers will stop doing it. But that hardly seems to qualify as a bug in bash. Lots of programs swing back and forth between strictness and lenience. A counter-argument can be made that permitting the sloppy code to "work" upholds the maxim of "be liberal in what you accept".