On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:29:12AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>
> You're right that what other shells implement doesn't allow any possibility
> of unescaped backslashes in the shell. But if what they do is what's
Well the only shell that does allow it is bash and its behaviour
is inconsistent a
On 3/29/18 6:42 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:06:32PM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
Since bash itself is inconsistent, and POSIX unclear,
What exactly is unclear about the sentence of POSIX that I quoted? Is there
a legitimate interpretation of "It is unspecified whether A
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:06:32PM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>
> >Since bash itself is inconsistent, and POSIX unclear,
> What exactly is unclear about the sentence of POSIX that I quoted? Is there
> a legitimate interpretation of "It is unspecified whether A or B" that
> allows other behaviour
On 28/03/2018 13:00, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:53:31PM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
[un-snip]
If a pattern ends with an unescaped , it is unspecified whether the pattern does not match anything or the pattern is treated as invalid.
I don't think this allows dash's beh
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:53:31PM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>
> I don't think this allows dash's behaviour of taking the backslash as a
> literal, since that still allows a match to succeed. bash lets such a
> pattern never match. In other shells, there is no way to get into this
> situation,
On 28/03/2018 12:37, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:03:24PM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
When expanded backslashes are no longer treated as quoted, this would call
expmeta() with the pattern *\, that is with a single unquoted trailing
backslash, so:
[...]
Thanks for the explana
