On 05/06/2015 10:13 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > intentionally non-compliant behavior. If we make this change (and I'm > 90-10 against changing anything at all), then: >
> But the reason I'm against changing it is that checking an arbitrary > string for empty content is SUCH a common operation that making certain > arbitrary strings special is more likely to break behavior of > unsuspecting programs. The escape hatch of "well, you should have set > POSIXLY_CORRECT" is unappealing, as turning on POSIX compliance often > cripples other non-standard extensions that people tend to rely on. Another argument against the change: This proposal would only affect /bin/test (or 'env test', or other constructs that force resolution through PATH). However, most shells have 'test' as a builtin, so it will NOT impact those instances. Having coreutils needlessly differ from other implementations is undesirable. If you can first get 'bash' patched to do this, you might have a stronger argument, but bash is one of those programs where the mere act of setting POSIXLY_CORRECT in the environment changes a lot about how bash behaves. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
