From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rudolf Polzer Subject: Re: Bug: temporary assignments vs shell function Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 07:59:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20110801055941.GA10730@div0.qc.to> References: <20110714083455.GA25362@div0.qc.to> <20110714092615.GA15476@elie> <20110714100915.GA18946@div0.qc.to> <20110731221904.GA74938@stack.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from rm.div0.qc.to ([94.23.21.40]:48174 "EHLO rm.div0.qc.to" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753350Ab1HAF7q (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Aug 2011 01:59:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110731221904.GA74938@stack.nl> Sender: dash-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dash@vger.kernel.org To: Jilles Tjoelker Cc: Jonathan Nieder , dash@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 12:19:04AM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Rudolf Polzer wrote: > > I just retested with that very command, and yes, the FreeBSD /bin/sh > > does behave the "non-POSIX" (and "obvious") way, and so does the > > Solaris /bin/sh. > > Yes, FreeBSD /bin/sh is not POSIX compliant here. Because the current > behaviour is explicitly documented and much more useful than the POSIX > behaviour, I don't really like changing it ;-) How is it more useful? I can't see any case where it'd help... But I do understand it's defined like that in the spec, and that is what dash should follow. Best regards, Rudolf Polzer