Date:Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:48:29 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180810154829.GA26874@lt2.masqnet>
| Wouldn't simply changing
| "multiple fields" to "multiple fields or no fields" solve it?
There was one more thing I meant to say about that solution,
which
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> From looking at the current manuals available on Linux systems, I propose to
> start with the manual pages from OpenSolaris since these manual pages seem to
> be closer from being complete enough for the POSIX standard.
The text from LI18NUX [1] and LSB [2] would be a
Date:Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:48:29 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180810154829.GA26874@lt2.masqnet>
| Wouldn't simply changing
| "multiple fields" to "multiple fields or no fields" solve it?
I am sure there are many ways it could be solved. That is one,
if
Date:Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:26:13 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180810152613.GA26492@lt2.masqnet>
| Brace expansion is widely implemented, so the chance it will be rejected
| is zero.
I agree that something needs to be done, but it might not be 1193.
To me
Robert Elz wrote, on 10 Aug 2018:
>
> But given the way that the text is written (lines 74994-5):
>
> It is only field splitting or pathname expansion that can create
> multiple
> fields from a single word. The single exception...
>
> it is really hard to read it as "0 is
Date:Fri, 10 Aug 2018 13:30:28 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180810123028.GA23963@lt2.masqnet>
| Actually, I think the existing description of Field Splitting handles
| it correctly.
I disagree, but not for the reason that I think you believe...
| It
Robert Elz wrote, on 10 Aug 2018:
>
> | I don't see the need to have an intermediate fix in 1123; it will just
> | create extra work to edit both bugs. They will both go into the next
> | update to the standard, whatever that is (TC3 or Issue 8).
>
> You are presuming that 1193 will not
Date:Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:33:37 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <2018081017.GA24957@lt2.masqnet>
| I don't see the need to have an intermediate fix in 1123; it will just
| create extra work to edit both bugs. They will both go into the next
| update to
Stephane Chazelas wrote in <20180810091752.iyenblg7ik737...@chaz.gmail.com>:
|2018-08-08 19:19:56 -0500, Eric Blake:
|> (I wish I could point you to mailing list archives, but
|> https://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ points to gmane, which \
|> is no
|> longer functional, and I don't
Robert Elz wrote, on 10 Aug 2018:
>
> For this, I'd suggest rewriting the offending paragraph of 2.6 to be:
>
> Tilde expansions, parameter expansions, command substitutions,
> arithmetic expansions, and quote removals that occur within a single
> word expand to a single field.
On this issue, I have also finally realised the answer to another thing
that had perplexed me for ages (not about the standard, well, perhaos
a fix is required, but not all that significant) and certainly not about
what the shells should, or do, produce, which is clear, but about how
people speak
Geoff Clare wrote, on 10 Aug 2018:
>
> Robert Elz wrote, on 10 Aug 2018:
> >
> > set --; A=; for x in a $A b $* c; do printf "[%s]\n" "$x"; done
> >
> > needs to produce
> >
> > [a]
> > [b]
> > [c]
[...]
> > A=: ; IFS=: ; for x in a $A b; do printf "[%s]\n" "$x"; done
>
Robert Elz wrote, on 10 Aug 2018:
>
> set --; A=; for x in a $A b $* c; do printf "[%s]\n" "$x"; done
>
> needs to produce
>
> [a]
> [b]
> [c]
[...]
> So, perhaps back to something more like the proposed text for
> this paragraph in note 4071, but changed from "an
Hi all,
I am happy that we have an agreement to standardize gettext() in POSIX.
We may need to agree on a way to do the discussion. Using the Austin Mantis may
be an option but I am not sure whether this is the best idea.
Eric Blake wrote:
> Hello GNU gettext folks,
>
> Jörg Schilling is
Date:Fri, 10 Aug 2018 09:02:47 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180810080247.GA20183@lt2.masqnet>
| The paragraph should be deleted.
Unfortunately, that is not good enough.There needs to be text somewhere
allowing empty fields to be removed (aside from
2018-08-08 19:19:56 -0500, Eric Blake:
> (I wish I could point you to mailing list archives, but
> https://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/ points to gmane, which is no
> longer functional, and I don't know of any other web archival visiting the
> Austin list)
Note that while the gmane web
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001123.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1193
==
Reported By:geoffclare
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1123
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
These are the draft minutes from this week's call. Andrew will need
to allocate the Austin-xxx document number and add the file to the
document register after he returns from vacation.
Regards,
Geoff.
--
Minutes of the 9th August 2018 Teleconference Austin-xxx Page 1 of 1
Submitted
Geoff Clare wrote, on 07 Aug 2018:
>
> Robert Elz wrote, on 06 Aug 2018:
> >
> > | For step 1 this would conflict with 2.5.2 which says that empty fields
> > | resulting from expanding @ and * _may_ be discarded. Your suggestion
> > | would require them to be discarded instead of it being
20 matches
Mail list logo
