Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Op 08-08-17 om 00:49 schreef Thorsten Glaser: > I completely disagree, especially when combined with other wording. Well, Geoff Clare did say the existing wording is broken in any case. If the goal is compatibility with pre-existing practice (in this case, ksh88) and the majority of other shells

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Robert Elz dixit: >there is no right answer - and that the only rational result is that portable >scripts cannot expect to be able to exec a function (or any builtin that is Yes, but the others in this thread want to allow portable scripts to rely on the exec builtin always resulting in a PATH

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Martijn Dekker dixit: >> And this is utter nonsense, the builtin does replace the shell process, > >No. On mksh, 'exec builtin' is exactly equivalent to 'builtin; exit'. >The builtin is run in the existing shell process. No >replacing/overlaying of the shell process takes place. It's easy to

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Martijn Dekker wrote: > Op 02-08-17 om 22:17 schreef Thorsten Glaser: > > Robert Elz dixit: > > > >> The only way that the standard will ever say that "exec fn" is possible > >> (exec builtin is supposed to be possible now, as (almost) all builtins > >> are supposed to have

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Op 26-07-17 om 00:41 schreef Thorsten Glaser: > Martijn Dekker dixit: > >> This behaviour also appears to be contrary to the documentation in >> mksh(1) ("The command is executed without forking, replacing the shell >> process"). The test script below demonstrates that neither "exec" > > And

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Whether ?echo? is a builtin or not is an implementation detail. > Heck, things like ?true?, ?false?, ? are (and others can be) > implemented in some operating systems by symlinking them to the > shell executable (either ksh93 *or* mksh? not even

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Robert Elz dixit: > | This specifically means that builtins MAY be made available > | to exec, and that thatbs an expected modus operandi. > >It means nothing of the kind. The System Interfaces volume of POSIX.1-2008 >is the part that defines the system calls. There’s no “exec” system

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Martijn Dekker dixit: >And under what theory should 'exec' run a shell function? Read up on what a “command” can be, pretty far up in the Shell part. Although I did not manage to get a pipeline or loop run. Not sure if that’s a bug, but looking at the way statements are parsed, probably not.

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Op 25-07-17 om 23:41 schreef Thorsten Glaser: > Martijn Dekker dixit: > >> This behaviour also appears to be contrary to the documentation in >> mksh(1) ("The command is executed without forking, replacing the shell >> process"). The test script below demonstrates that neither "exec" > > And

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Martijn Dekker dixit: >to be a bug in POSIX terms; 'exec' is supposed to launch a program that >overlays the current shell[2], implying the program launched by 'exec' >is always external to the shell. The built-in utility is “the program implementing command”, and, with exec, it is not returning

Re: 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

Martijn Dekker dixit: >This behaviour also appears to be contrary to the documentation in >mksh(1) ("The command is executed without forking, replacing the shell >process"). The test script below demonstrates that neither "exec" And this is utter nonsense, the builtin does replace the shell

[BUG] 'exec' runs shell functions and builtins

In mksh (and pdksh), 'exec' looks up shell functions and builtins before external commands, and if it finds one it appears to do the equivalent of running the function or builtin followed by 'exit'. This turns out[1] to be a bug in POSIX terms; 'exec' is supposed to launch a program that overlays