Re: Alias implementations being invalidated by proposed new wording?

2019-01-10 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:50:40 + (UTC) From:Shware Systems Message-ID: <1537723040.9754896.1547167840...@mail.yahoo.com> | What I was referring to, when alias bodies include a <;>, In the 953 and after wordings, that would be an unspecified case, as

Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0000953]: Alias expansion is under-specified

2019-01-10 Thread Chet Ramey
On 1/10/19 5:29 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote: > In any case, by no longer allowing pipelines, redirections, > multiple commands, keywords, comments in alias values, empty or > blank aliases, that proposed change breaks many applications, > especially scripts. I'm not sure making those cases

Re: bc Suggestions

2019-01-10 Thread Gavin Howard
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:18 AM Geoff Clare wrote: > > Gavin Howard wrote, on 08 Jan 2019: > > > > Hello, > > > > I am the author of an implementation of bc > > (https://github.com/gavinhoward/bc). My experience has given me > > several things that I can suggest in changing the bc standard. > >

Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0000953]: Alias expansion is under-specified

2019-01-10 Thread Stephane Chazelas
2019-01-10 04:00:37 +0700, Robert Elz: [...] > Nor can we tell the shells not to expand words that would be > keywords when used elsewhere as currently users have the > ability to do that, and we cannot break existing conforming > applications. [...] It seems there's been a misunderstanding. I'm

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001157]: major overhaul of exec special built-in

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1157 == Reported By:geoffclare Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001157]: major overhaul of exec special built-in

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been RESOLVED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1157 == Reported By:geoffclare Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001157]: major overhaul of exec special built-in

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been UPDATED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1157 == Reported By:geoffclare Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001157]: major overhaul of exec special built-in

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1157 == Reported By:geoffclare Assigned To:

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000252]: dot should follow Utility Syntax Guidelines

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001157. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=252 == Reported By:eblake Assigned

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001157]: major overhaul of exec special built-in

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 252. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1157 == Reported By:geoffclare

Austin Group teleconference +1-888-426-6840 PIN: 2115756

2019-01-10 Thread Single UNIX Specification
BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//opengroup.org//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.22.1// CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 TZNAME:EDT DTSTART:20120311T02

initstate, etc. specification

2019-01-10 Thread Vincent Lefevre
The description of initstate, etc. is rather unclear, if not erroneous. One can read: "Values for the amount of state information are 8, 32, 64, 128, and 256 bytes." But earlier, it is said: "The random() function shall use a non-linear additive feedback random-number generator employing a

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001155]: Make should mention the special treatment of $(MAKE)

2019-01-10 Thread Paul Smith
FWIW, I don't agree with the current change in http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1155 (as discussed below) and I don't think it should be accepted as-is (speaking as the maintainer of GNU make), so I don't think the current "Accepted as Marked" resolution is correct. I'm fine with the rest

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001156]: Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not backed by files?

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been RESOLVED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156 == Reported By:Florian Weimer Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001156]: Should fflush (NULL) flush streams not backed by files?

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1156 == Reported By:Florian Weimer Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001224]: Conflict between 2.9.1 and 2.10.2 re simple command terminator

2019-01-10 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1224 == Reported By:geoffclare Assigned To:

Re: bc Suggestions

2019-01-10 Thread Geoff Clare
Gavin Howard wrote, on 08 Jan 2019: > > Hello, > > I am the author of an implementation of bc > (https://github.com/gavinhoward/bc). My experience has given me > several things that I can suggest in changing the bc standard. > > Note: for all suggestions, I am using this PDF: >

Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0000953]: Alias expansion is under-specified

2019-01-10 Thread Geoff Clare
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 09 Jan 2019: > > > http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=953#c4201 [...] > >(In other words, the contents of the ENV file are not parsed as a single > >compound_list, unlike the contents of a dot script. This > >distinction matters because it influences when aliases