[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

UTC Last Modified: 2020-05-05 15:18 UTC == Summary:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

== Summary:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

== Summary:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001150 exit status

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

== Summary:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

Robert Elz wrote, on 27 Jan 2020: > > From:Geoff Clare > > | On page 2373 line 75814 section 2.9.4.4 The if Conditional Construct, add: > | > | Note: Although the exit status of the if or elif > | compound-list > > Would it be possible t

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

status of some compound commands | is stated in terms of the exit status of a compound-list. | The exit status of a compound-list shall be the value that | the special parameter '?' (see [xref to 2.5.2]) would have | immediately after execution of the compound-list. That look

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001150 exit status

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

pe of normative addition you are > | requesting. > > Something just to make it clear would be better than nothing. Looking at the "Exit Status" sections of some of these commands, there are more "last command" problems. Also, some of them refer to the exit status of a com

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

Date:Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:34:08 + From:Geoff Clare Message-ID: <20200121113408.GA27285@lt2.masqnet> | If we do add something, then I think that some non-normative words along | the lines of your explanation at the bottom ("to clarify that ...") | would be

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

Austin Group Bug Tracker wrote, on 20 Jan 2020: > > -- > (0004743) kre (reporter) - 2020-01-20 18:37 > https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1309#c4743 >

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary -- related to 0001150 exit status

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary -- related

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == Relationships ID Summary -- related

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004742) geoffclare (manager) - 2020-01-20 14:54 https

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

Date:Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:57:47 + From:Austin Group Bug Tracker Message-ID: <81886c8b58ad7c7dbd9546fee75ea...@austingroupbugs.net> | Regarding the wording to use, I think using "pipeline" is correct. Agreed. kre

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004741) geoffclare (manager) - 2020-01-20 11:57 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004739) kre (reporter) - 2020-01-18 02:38 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004738) joerg (reporter) - 2020-01-17 15:53 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004737) geoffclare (manager) - 2020-01-17 15:39 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004736) kre (reporter) - 2020-01-17 10:31 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004735) joerg (reporter) - 2020-01-17 09:56 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004734) kre (reporter) - 2020-01-17 04:17 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004733) kre (reporter) - 2020-01-16 21:36 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004732) kre (reporter) - 2020-01-16 20:35 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements == -- (0004731) geoffclare (manager) - 2020-01-16 17:42 https

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001309]: Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements

:Clarity needed for initial value of $? at start of compound-list compound statements Description: Currently, nothing says what the "previous command" is precisely when beginning execution of one of the lists in the body of a compound statement. This is (fortunately) not controversial, as

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

== Summary:compound-list does not required a terminating semicolon even in compound commands, which is contradictory with implementations. == Relationships

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

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.

== Summary:compound-list does not required a terminating semicolon even in compound commands, which is contradictory with implementations. == Relationships ID Summary

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

:compound-list does not required a terminating semicolon even in compound commands, which is contradictory with implementations. Description: The shell grammar is defining the non terminal for compound_list as follows: compound_list : linebreak term | linebreak term

Re: compound-list

2017-06-13 07:22:10 +0100, Stephane Chazelas: > 2017-06-13 00:02:34 +0200, Jilles Tjoelker: > [...] > > I think this is supposed to be handled by rule 1 in the first (non-yacc) > > part of 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules, but the text is not clear to me. For > > example, rule 7b for non-initial words

Re: compound-list

2017-06-13 00:02:34 +0200, Jilles Tjoelker: [...] > I think this is supposed to be handled by rule 1 in the first (non-yacc) > part of 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules, but the text is not clear to me. For > example, rule 7b for non-initial words in a simple command says rule 1 > should be applied, but

Re: compound-list

Date:Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:02:34 +0200 From:Jilles Tjoelker Message-ID: <20170612220234.ga26...@stack.nl> | I think this is supposed to be handled by rule 1 in the first (non-yacc) | part of 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules, but the text is not clear to

Re: compound-list

2017-06-12 20:05:49 +, Yann Régis-Gianas: > Dear members of the Opengroup, > > the shell grammar is defining the non terminal for compound_list as follows: > > compound_list : linebreak term | linebreak term separator ; > > and this non terminal is used in compound_commands like