Re: Behavior of "sh -c +c"

2021-11-04 Thread Vincent Lefevre via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On 2021-11-03 16:41:40 +, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > 2021-11-03 17:06:07 +0100, Vincent Lefevre via austin-group-l at The Open > Group: > [...] > > ksh93 and mksh run an interactive shell, but I wonder whether this > > should be regarded as a bug. > > >

Re: Behavior of "sh -c +c"

2021-11-03 Thread Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group
2021-11-03 17:06:07 +0100, Vincent Lefevre via austin-group-l at The Open Group: > On 2021-10-30 14:33:04 +0100, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The > Open Group wrote: > > POSIX ended up mandating that bug (mandating that system("+c") > > should run an interactive shell for instance),

Behavior of "sh -c +c"

2021-11-03 Thread Vincent Lefevre via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On 2021-10-30 14:33:04 +0100, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > POSIX ended up mandating that bug (mandating that system("+c") > should run an interactive shell for instance), because, like the > the Unix libc implementors, they overlooked the issue. It is > clearly