Re: [Issue 8 drafts 0001532]: "stty -g" output should not have to be split

2022-02-11 Thread Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group
This is probably a silly question, but how long can the output of stty -g be? Because as worded ("line of text") the output would be limited to less than LINE_MAX.  If that might be an issue the wording could be changed to something like "string of characters terminated by a newline". -- Wayne

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

2021-11-01 Thread Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group
... 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

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

2021-11-01 Thread Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group
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,

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

2021-10-30 Thread Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group
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? Section 1.4 "Utility Description Defaults" of the Introduction states "... Default Behavior: When this section is