On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Marc Chantreux wrote:
> hello Eric,
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:43:39AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > The Austin Group has been asked whether future POSIX should include
> > the sponge(1) utility
>
> thanks for sharing this very good news. I didn't know about the Austin
> Group either so you made my day.
Sorry for not answering sooner,
>
> do you know a way to file a request to them? I really would like to
> suggest the behavior of most of the shells to be adopted as a POSIX
> behavior: no need to write a counpound expression expression to declare
> a function so
>
> ll() ls -l "$@"
>
> would be the same as
>
> ll() { ls -l "$@" }
>
> so maybe people would stop using alias to to such things and then
> complain when they discover they don't understand what alias is like in
>
> assert() {
> echo "I will $*"
> "$@"
> }
>
> which fails with aliases
Proposals for changes to POSIX can be submitted at
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/. For this particular request, it may
be worth checking the existing POSIX grammar at
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_19_10
which shows
compound_command : brace_group
| subshell
| for_clause
| case_clause
| if_clause
| while_clause
| until_clause
;
...
function_body : compound_command /* Apply rule 9 */
| compound_command redirect_list /* Apply rule 9 */
;
which does not include your desired syntax, so your bug report should
include what the updated grammar should look like.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
Virtualization: qemu.org | libguestfs.org
