Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chaze...@gmail.com> wrote, on 17 Jun 2019: > > 2019-06-17 12:14:29 +0100, Geoff Clare: > [...] > > The standard clearly requires pathname expansion to be performed, > > using the pattern \*x > > > > If some shells don't bother to actually read the directory and do > > any matching operations, depending on the pattern contents, because > > they know that the outcome will be the same regardless of the contents > > of the directory, then that's an acceptable internal optimisation, but > > it doesn't affect what the standard requires the outcome of pathname > > expansion to be. > [...] > > So you're saying bash5 is the only compliant implementation > here, right?
As far as the examples below are concerned, yes. > That: > > touch '*x' > file='\*x' IFS= > printf %s $file > > MUST output "*x" as *x is a file (the file) that matches the \*x > pattern. Yes. > And: > > BEL='\a' IFS= > printf %b $BEL > > MUST output "a" if there's a file called "a" in the current > directory because that "a" file matches the "\a" pattern. Yes. > And all other implementations (including all the certified ones, > including kre's) should be deemed non-compliant? Yes. -- Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org> The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
