[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001150]: exit status of command substitution not properly specified

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1150 == Reported By:kre Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001150]: exit status of command substitution not properly specified

The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1150 == Reported By:kre Assigned To:

Re: IEEE 1003.1b-1993 standard

Ty Joe, that will be useful. In a message dated 6/15/2017 4:44:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, gw...@raytheon.com writes: Joe M. I asked the IEEE if they could provide 1003.1b-1993 to The Austin Group, to support the revision of 1003.1-2008, and the IEEE have provided 1003.1b-1993

Re: What shell implementations to consider

Joerg Schilling dixit: >mksh needs "-o utf8-mode -o posix" to work as expected. Another clarification here: Only “lksh -o posix” in the C locale is considered to be tracking POSIX. Do *not* set UTF-8 mode in mksh and then complain about differences from the POSIX standard. Similarily, export

Re: What shell implementations to consider

Stephane Chazelas dixit: >ksh extensions, as basically mksh is pdksh with a few fixes and “a few”, sure, just way over a decade worth of them, and neither pdksh nor its other derivatives share about 90% of them. Just saying. bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh

Re: compound-list

Date:Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:41:29 +0200 From:Joerg Schilling Message-ID: <59429c99.j3ycveab5syr2msh%joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> First, most of this discussion on what should be implemented (which is another way of saying

Re: compound-list

Dear Robert, thank you for your time. Le jeu. 15 juin 2017 à 11:48, Robert Elz a écrit : > Does your implementation also accept > > until a "do" b; done > > as valid? No. > If not why not? The note in Section 2.10.2 says that "quoted strings cannot be

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001143]: cancellation points: contradiction between base definition and rationale

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1143 == Reported By:dstaesse Assigned To:

Re: compound-list

On 6/15/17 4:12 AM, Yann Régis-Gianas wrote: > For the moment, our implementation will continue to follow the shell > grammar of the POSIX standard (i.e. we will continue to accept "until a do > b; done" as a syntactically valid script. You might consider the implications of the following text

Re: compound-list

Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > > POSIX does not allow > > > > f() cmd > > > > but only > > > > f() { cmd; } > > > > and even the Bourne Shell allows (documents) this only for the case that > > "cmd" is a compound command that (like we discussed) does not

Re: compound-list

Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > Sorry, correcting my correction. I read the above two quickly. > It seems I was right. In TC1 and before, it does look like > indeed that in > > < file until ... > > That "until" is required to be a WORD as per: > > cmd_word : WORD

Re: compound-list

2017-06-15 13:56:16 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > > One more major issue identified in this thread is that in TC2, > > the "until" in > > > > < file until... > > > > or: > > > > foo=bar until... > > > > is now required to be recognised as the

Re: compound-list

2017-06-15 16:58:18 +0700, Robert Elz: > Date:Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:12:37 + > From:=?UTF-8?B?WWFubiBSw6lnaXMtR2lhbmFz?= > > Message-ID: > > > | If my

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001145]: compound-list does not required a terminating semicolon even in compound commands, which is contradictory with implementations.

The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001046. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1145 == Reported By:yannregisgianas

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001145]: compound-list does not required a terminating semicolon even in compound commands, which is contradictory with implementations.

The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1145 == Reported By:yannregisgianas Assigned To: