-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Chet Ramey on 2/23/2009 1:16 PM:
> OK. Let me try to explain how the current behavior derives from Posix.
>
> It falls under two parts of the standard (section 1.4):
>
> 1. Unless otherwise stated in the utility description, when given
On Monday 23 February 2009 15:16:21 Chet Ramey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> Are filenames beginning with a `-' useless because `rm' interprets
> >> them as option arguments when, for instance, they're generated by the
> >> expansion of `*'? Is `rm' broken for interpreting them as options?
>
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Are filenames beginning with a `-' useless because `rm' interprets
>> them as option arguments when, for instance, they're generated by the
>> expansion of `*'? Is `rm' broken for interpreting them as options?
>> I mean, there's no real difference between the two cases.
On Monday 23 February 2009 10:53:06 Chet Ramey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 23 February 2009 08:48:32 Chet Ramey wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values (
> >>> treated as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 23 February 2009 08:48:32 Chet Ramey wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
>>> as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
>>> related to option parsing has broken
On Monday 23 February 2009 08:48:32 Chet Ramey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
> > as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
> > related to option parsing has broken that
> >
> > $ f(){ retur
On Monday 23 February 2009 07:50:30 Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Mike Frysinger on 2/22/2009 10:03 PM:
> > previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
> > as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
> > related to option parsing has bro
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
> signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
> to option parsing has broken that
>
> $ f(){ return -1; }; f
> -bash: return: -1: invalid option
> return: usage:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Mike Frysinger on 2/22/2009 10:03 PM:
> previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
> signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
> to option parsing has broken that
>
>
On Monday 23 February 2009 00:25:57 Jon Seymour wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated
> > as a signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes
> > related to option parsing h
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
> signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
> to option parsing has broken that
>
> $ f(){ return -1; }; f
> -bash: return: -1:
previous versions of bash would happily accept negative values ( treated as a
signed integer and masked with like 0xff), but it seems some changes related
to option parsing has broken that
$ f(){ return -1; }; f
-bash: return: -1: invalid option
return: usage: return [n]
POSIX states that the r
12 matches
Mail list logo
