rm -rf ./ ../

Hello, the "rm" POSIX spec currently says: > If either of the files dot or dot-dot are specified as the > basename portion of an operand (that is, the final pathname > component) [...] rm shall write a diagnostic message to > standard error and do nothing more with such operands. AFAIK, that's

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

2017-06-06 23:04:43 +0200, Jilles Tjoelker: [...] > > Yes, you're right, it looks like the "-" in: > > > sh +u-e > > > is just ignored (or everything is ignored for all I can tell > > with testing as there's nothing that can be turned off here). > > > More generally, given that there's no

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

I'm not against, as long as it doesn't reopen the trapdoor issue, but think it would have to be explicit the option listing function, -o or +o without value, is not supported by sh, just set; including 'sh -o;' and 'sh +o;' forms to keep it simple. This addresses the ambiguity that -o

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

2017-06-06 14:04:39 +0100, Stephane Chazelas: > OK, going forward, to fix the spec, would we be in agreement > that the spec should guarantee this: > > In: > > sh - > > Where can be any number argument starting with -, +, > being "--", "-" or not. > > Those would be taken as operands (the

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001142]: pread(2) and pwrite(2) should be async-signal-safe

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1142 == Reported By:dancol Assigned To:

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

OK, going forward, to fix the spec, would we be in agreement that the spec should guarantee this: In: sh - Where can be any number argument starting with -, +, being "--", "-" or not. Those would be taken as operands (the first being the script name, the rest its arguments) sh --

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001142]: pread(2) and pwrite(2) should be async-signal-safe

>-- > (0003753) shware_systems (reporter) - 2017-06-06 12:14 > http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1142#c3753 >-- >While this looks reasonable, the

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001142]: pread(2) and pwrite(2) should be async-signal-safe

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1142 == Reported By:dancol Assigned To:

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > I don't think it's that as, in "sh -o -", the - would be an > argument to "-o" (and unspecified as "-" is not one of the POSIX > option names). ksh93 and bosh start an interractive shell that first does "set -o" > I think I have

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

Stephane Chazelas wrote: > AFAICT the historical reason for "-" to also be the > end-of-option marker was that in the Bourne shell, options were > only considered in the first argument if it started with "-" > (and later, "+" as well). What follows the "-" is a list,