A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1607 ====================================================================== Reported By: nmeum Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1607 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: New Name: Sören Tempel Organization: User Reference: Section: ed Page Number: 2691 Line Number: 87825 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2022-09-26 12:22 UTC Last Modified: 2022-09-26 16:54 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: Operator associativity for address chain operator is not specified ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0005976) nmeum (reporter) - 2022-09-26 16:54 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1607#c5976 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I have no idea where the: 1,$ conclusion can possibly originate - where does the 1 come from? Apologies if I am misunderstanding the specification here, but isn't this a question of applying the omission rules? According to the omission rules "," is expanded to "1,$" (line number 87377). Therefore, I assumed 7,5, to be evaluated (left to right) as follows when grouped from the left: 7,5, -> (7,5), -> (7,5)(1,$) -> 1,$ Since 7,5 is already a valid address there are no omission rules to apply. As such, you would then expand "," to "1,$" (line number 87377) and then discard address until the "maximum number of valid addresses remain" (line number 87368). Assuming the command takes two addresses my understanding would be that one thus ends up with "1,$" with left to right evaluation order. This is, of cause, in violation with line number 87825, thus I assumed the specification requires grouping from the right: 7,5, -> 7,(5,) -> 7,5,5 -> 5,5 > A first address (7,5) would be 5 and 5, [...] Why would "(7,5)" be "5" and "5,"? Is this a typo and you mean "7" and "5,"? If so: Are you not grouping from the right then? Or do you mean that 7,5 should evaluate to 5? If so: where is this stated in the spec? Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2022-09-26 12:22 nmeum New Issue 2022-09-26 12:22 nmeum Name => Sören Tempel 2022-09-26 12:22 nmeum Section => ed 2022-09-26 12:22 nmeum Page Number => 2691 2022-09-26 12:22 nmeum Line Number => 87825 2022-09-26 14:01 kre Note Added: 0005975 2022-09-26 16:54 nmeum Note Added: 0005976 ======================================================================
