On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:02 PM Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The
Open Group wrote:
> On 11/1/2021 9:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:21:55PM -0400, Wayne Pollock via
> austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> >> Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup
The standard does specify exceptions to the Utility Syntax Guidelines in the
OPTIONS section of each utility that needs an exception. For example, if you
look at the start of the OPTIONS section in the description of the c99 utility,
you will find:
The c99 utility shall conform to XBD
...
For context, the example was . nohup should be, and as far as I
know, is required to support invocations as
, treating that first <--> as the end of the options. The GNU extension
that options and the end-of-options indicator can also follow operands is as far as I
know not supported by
On 11/1/2021 9:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:21:55PM -0400, Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at
The Open Group wrote:
Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup (and friends) must not accept
or
delete the first "--"? For the example to work, nohup must not
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:21:55PM -0400, Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at
The Open Group wrote:
> Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup (and friends) must not
> accept or
> delete the first "--"? For the example to work, nohup must not discard the
> "--".
> But might it?
I'm
Robert Elz wrote, on 30 Oct 2021:
>
> | Another thing to consider: if enough implementations fix things NOW to
> | use "--" in system() and popen(), then by the time we actually DO
> | release Issue 8, it will already be common enough practice to
> | standardize it.
>
> I think you'd need
