On 22/06/2019 06:33, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
2019-06-21 11:15:51 +0100, Geoff Clare:
[...]
if test -n "$BASH_VERSION"; then
eval 'as_f_echo() { printf "%s\n" "$@"; }'
as_echo=as_f_echo
fi
Probably simpler just to put "set -f" at the top of the configure
script. (And if globbing is
On 24/06/2019 15:16, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/22/19 8:57 AM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
But in bash5's
files='/a/\b/??/x/*'
ls -d $files
That \ becomes a globbing operator, so we get the same list of
files as in a literal /a/[b]/??/x/*, not a literal /a/\b/??/x/*
That doesn't sound right. The
The following issue has been UPDATED.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1262
==
Reported By:stephane
Assigned To:
On 24/06/2019 21:15, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
But that means that those ksh extended glob operators are not
enabled in:
pattern='@(x)'; cmd $pattern
or
case string in $pattern) ...
(for the latter, that changed in ksh93 which makes it
non-compliant; ksh88, pdksh, mksh are still OK).
I do not
On 6/24/19 1:53 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On 24/06/2019 15:16, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 6/22/19 8:57 AM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>>
But in bash5's
files='/a/\b/??/x/*'
ls -d $files
That \ becomes a globbing operator, so we get the same list of
files as in a
On 24/06/2019 11:04, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Austin Group Bug Tracker wrote:
Where you refer to "*every* shell (except bash5 ...)", that's inaccurate
because:
1. Robert Elz and Harald van Dijk have shells that behave like bash5.
I would be happy to check these shells, but unfortunately they
2019-06-24 18:45:55 +0100, Harald van Dijk:
[...]
> FWIW, that is not what ksh implements and it might be an unreasonable
> requirement on ksh. From its manpage:
>
> > Following splitting, each field is scanned for the characters ∗, ?, (,
> > and [ unless the -f option has been set. [...]
>
>
2019-06-24 18:45:55 +0100, Harald van Dijk:
[...]
> This particular example is already not required to behave in any particular
> way for other reasons, but I do not know whether changes to this example
> might produce something where an overly strict requirement in POSIX would
> prohibit ksh's
Robert Elz wrote, on 21 Jun 2019:
>
> Date:Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:36:50 +
> From:Austin Group Bug Tracker
> Message-ID: <4cdf4cf3c62851749835b47b8a57a...@austingroupbugs.net>
>
> | However, they got the wording slightly wrong.
>
> I disagree. I think it is
Eric Blake wrote:
> POSIX has already long-documented the fact that echo cannot be used to
> output arbitrary data, and recommended the use of printf. autoconf's
> as_echo should be viewed as a thin shim around printf these days, rather
The problem with using printf is that there are many
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2019-06-21 11:15:51 +0100, Geoff Clare:
> [...]
> > > if test -n "$BASH_VERSION"; then
> > > eval 'as_f_echo() { printf "%s\n" "$@"; }'
> > > as_echo=as_f_echo
> > > fi
> >
> > Probably simpler just to put "set -f" at the top of the configure
> > script. (And if
Geoff Clare wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote, on 24 Jun 2019:
> > Shouldn't there be the goal to keep the POSIX usability even in corner
> > cases?
> >
> > But anyway: To me it seems that bash5 changed some behavior to no longer
> > match
> > historical UNIX and if we continue with the way we
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1234
==
Reported By:stephane
Assigned To:
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2. Sane people don't use \ for quoting. They know it's way
> overloaded. (they may know that most script writers forget to use
> -r with read (IFS= read -r line is the syntax to read a line
> btw)), so they use quotes instead.
>
> They will carefully test
>
>ls -d
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1234
==
Reported By:stephane
Assigned To:
Joerg Schilling wrote, on 24 Jun 2019:
>
> BTW: I see a problematic change in POSIX in the past years. We recently
> changed
> several parts of the POSIX standard towards "unspecified/undefined behavior"
> just
> because there was an implementation that does not follow the behavior of
>
Austin Group Bug Tracker wrote:
> Where you refer to "*every* shell (except bash5 ...)", that's inaccurate
> because:
>
> 1. Robert Elz and Harald van Dijk have shells that behave like bash5.
I would be happy to check these shells, but unfortunately they do not compile
on a certified POSIX
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> Yes, sh2020 would probably be a good idea. I hear the next
> version of ksh93 will actually be a ksh2002. New incompatible
> interface, new name. Or implement a BASH_COMPAT equivalent or a
> "use " a la perl (or bash's upcoming
> posixglob?)
Is this a joke or related
Eric Blake wrote:
> > and
> >
> > touch %sn
> > cmd='printf %s\n'
> > $cmd test
> >
> > which in all shells is documented to output test would
> > now be required to output testn (without newline).
> >
> > That's what bash5 now implements.
>
> And that is indeed the regression in behavior,
Chet Ramey wrote:
> Why would I do that? The default for `sh' is posix mode.
Why then does bash then still behaves different from POSIX?
I would expect to get XSI behavior for echo as well since it is improbable
that a typical bash user expects the reduced interfaces for embedded systems.
Jörg
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> I made the wrong assumptions based on the fact that
>
> a='/a/\b'; echo $a
>
> expands to /a/b when /a is readable and /a/\b when not,
> suggesting \ is a "pattern character" in that case.
So on a typial system where /a does not exist, it expands to /a/
Jörg
--
2019-06-24 09:48:21 -0400, Chet Ramey:
> On 6/22/19 2:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>
> > For them, and me, and it seems Eric as well, globbing is an
> > operator that is invoked whenever a word contains an unquoted
> > wildcard character (in "list" contexts).
>
> If you want the standard to
On 6/24/19 11:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2019-06-24 09:48:21 -0400, Chet Ramey:
>> On 6/22/19 2:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>>
>>> For them, and me, and it seems Eric as well, globbing is an
>>> operator that is invoked whenever a word contains an unquoted
>>> wildcard character (in
The following issue has been RESOLVED.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1241
==
Reported By:geoffclare
Assigned To:
The following issue has been RESOLVED.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1243
==
Reported By:schwarze
Assigned To:
2019-06-24 09:42:42 -0400, Chet Ramey:
> On 6/24/19 9:33 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> >> Bash claims posix conformance with the posix and xpg_echo options enabled.
> >> You can build bash so that both of these are enabled for strict
> >> conformance.
> >
> > I know, but it would be nice if
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1243
==
Reported By:schwarze
Assigned To:
The following issue has been UPDATED.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1244
==
Reported By:wahern
Assigned To:
Chet Ramey wrote, on 24 Jun 2019:
>
> On 6/24/19 11:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> > 2019-06-24 09:48:21 -0400, Chet Ramey:
> >> On 6/22/19 2:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> >>
> >>> For them, and me, and it seems Eric as well, globbing is an
> >>> operator that is invoked whenever a word
2019-06-24 11:52:56 -0400, Chet Ramey:
[...]
> > Before going in the details of the language, can we at least
> > agree on what the "intention" should be?
>
> Your intention is obvious. It's in the part I quoted.
>
> Pathname expansion is performed on words that contain an unquoted
> `*', `?',
2019-06-24 12:13:34 +0100, Geoff Clare:
> For this particular issue there is a strong case for upholding
> the requirements of the standard, for the sake of consistency.
[...]
I disagree. Here the inconsitency is caused by the way POSIX
chose to write the specification. They chose to specify the
Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 6/24/19 7:37 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Chet Ramey wrote:
> >
> >> Why would I do that? The default for `sh' is posix mode.
> >
> > Why then does bash then still behaves different from POSIX?
>
> If you find places where bash doesn't match POSIX when in posix mode,
On 6/24/19 9:33 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Bash claims posix conformance with the posix and xpg_echo options enabled.
>> You can build bash so that both of these are enabled for strict conformance.
>
> I know, but it would be nice if that was the default.
The ongoing disaster that is echo
On 6/22/19 2:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> For them, and me, and it seems Eric as well, globbing is an
> operator that is invoked whenever a word contains an unquoted
> wildcard character (in "list" contexts).
If you want the standard to say that, then propose language to make the
standard
On 6/24/19 7:37 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>
>> Why would I do that? The default for `sh' is posix mode.
>
> Why then does bash then still behaves different from POSIX?
If you find places where bash doesn't match POSIX when in posix mode,
please report them as bugs.
> I
On 6/22/19 8:57 AM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>> But in bash5's
>>
>> files='/a/\b/??/x/*'
>> ls -d $files
>>
>> That \ becomes a globbing operator, so we get the same list of
>> files as in a literal /a/[b]/??/x/*, not a literal /a/\b/??/x/*
>
> That doesn't sound right. The backslash is removed
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001238.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1240
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1240
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001237.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1238
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001238.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1237
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001239.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1237
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001238.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1239
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001239.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1238
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001239.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1240
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001240.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1239
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001237.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1239
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
The following issue has been RESOLVED.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1240
==
Reported By:kre
Assigned To:
2019-06-24 10:16:34 -0400, Chet Ramey:
[...]
> Bash-5.0 patch 3 made some changes here; what version are you using?
[...]
Just tried with the current head of the devel branch from today
(5.0.7(5)-maint).
In an empty dir:
$ mkdir -m a=r readable
$ mkdir -m a=x searchable
$ bash5 -c 'printf
On 24/06/2019 16:52, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/24/19 11:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
2019-06-24 09:48:21 -0400, Chet Ramey:
On 6/22/19 2:51 AM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
For them, and me, and it seems Eric as well, globbing is an
operator that is invoked whenever a word contains an unquoted
49 matches
Mail list logo
