[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:01:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>         Firstly, should we be pointing to the SuS instead of POSIX
>  (there is work going on a new version of the SUS), since it is open,
>  and readily available on th 'net, and people can readily see it (as
>  opposed to people who have shelled out $500 for a version)?

Sounds good.

>         Secondly, why should we explicity carve out an exception for
>  test -a and -o, rather than saying that the XSI extensions need be
>  supported? The X/Open System Interface is the core application
>  programming interface for C and sh programming for systems conforming
>  to the Single UNIX Specification.

Don't forget ( ) in that case, they go hand in hand with -a and -o.
> +	    <item><tt>local</tt> to create a scoped variable must be
> +	      supported; however, <tt>local</tt> may or may not preserve
> +	      the variable value from an outer scope and may or may not
> +	      support arguments more complex than simple variable
> +	      names</item>
>         Perhaps a example/footnote needs be inserted here? If I were
>  writing a script, it would help to be reminded that I can't really
>  depend on very much of the semantics of local from any specific
>  implementation.
> fname () {
>  local a  # keep it simple
>  a=''     # initialize the variable
>  .... use a ...
> }
>         is the only safe way to do use a local variable.  

Fine by me.

Regards: David
 /) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/

Reply to: