[Issue 8 drafts 0001478]: clarify ${@?error}, ${@+set}, "${@+set}", "${*+set}"... etc. expansions

The following issue has been RESOLVED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1478 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

Re: What string representations of "zero" expr should consider as "zero"?

2021-07-01 16:03:59 +0100, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group: > 2021-07-01 15:24:58 +0100, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open > Group: > [...] > > So in the same vein should expr's specification be changed from: > > > > 0 > > The expression evaluates

What string representations of "zero" expr should consider as "zero"?

2021-07-01 15:24:58 +0100, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group: [...] > So in the same vein should expr's specification be changed from: > > 0 > The expression evaluates to neither null nor zero. [...] BTW, for "expr", what is "zero" meant to be? I see some variatio

Re: utilities and write errors

2021-07-01 14:35:03 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group: [...] > The -v option is only in the Issue 8 drafts. It looks like we missed > the need for a change to the EXIT STATUS section when it was added. > I'd suggest adding to the description of exit status 0: [...] So in the

[Issue 8 drafts 0001487]: rm -v addition needs an extra change in EXIT STATUS

The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1487 == Reported By:geoffclare Assigned To:

Re: utilities and write errors

On 2021-06-29 17:28:40 +0100, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > But utilities are meant to behave the same whether they're > builtin or not. A non-builtin pwd writting to a closed pipe > would not cause the shell to exit. Another difference between implementations wi

Re: utilities and write errors

Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 01 Jul 2021: > > 2021-07-01 11:45:40 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group: > > > The GNU implementations (including bash builtins) of the POSIX utilities > > do it right. Of course, I don't know whether they were already > > well-behaved in this regar

Re: utilities and write errors

Geoff Clare wrote in <20210701104540.GA4023@localhost>: |Robert Elz wrote, on 29 Jun 2021: ... |As above, this is all irrelevant to what the standard requires. | |As far as implementation detail goes, obviously if pwd uses stdio |buffering then in order to conform to the standard it must exp

Re: utilities and write errors

2021-07-01 11:45:40 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group: [...] > The standard says nothing about internal buffering; it just requires > pwd to write the directory to file descriptor 1. It also states that > exit status 0 means "successful completion". [...] > If an implementor

Re: utilities and write errors

Robert Elz wrote, on 29 Jun 2021: > > Date:Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:49:40 +0100 > From:"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group" > > Message-ID: <20210629084940.GA8391@localhost> > > | You are wrong when you say it "printed it". It tried to print it but > |