The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
======================================================================
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1778
======================================================================
Reported By: kre
Assigned To:
======================================================================
Project: 1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1
Issue ID: 1778
Category: Shell and Utilities
Type: Enhancement Request
Severity: Objection
Priority: normal
Status: New
Name: Robert Elz
Organization:
User Reference:
Section: XCU 3/read
Page Number: 3291-3294
Line Number: 111869-111878, 111961-111963, 11946, 11979-11980
Interp Status: ---
Final Accepted Text:
======================================================================
Date Submitted: 2023-10-02 13:58 UTC
Last Modified: 2023-10-02 13:58 UTC
======================================================================
Summary: The read utility needs field splitting
updates/corrections )and a little more)
Description:
The description of how field splitting is used to process the input
and allocate it to the named variables has similar problems as those
with field splitting itself. The latter is being fixed in bug:1649.
The description of how this is done with read needs similar updates
(though less extensive) - whether or not bug:1649 is finally accepted.
In addition, starting on line 11961 the description of read says:
(If IFS is not set to the null string this applies even when using -d
"",
because the field splitting performed by read is a character-based
operation.)
which I am not sure remains true after the effects of bug:1560 (as
reinterpreted perhaps in bug:1649) are applied, but I will leave it
to others more knowledgble about what is or was intended here, and
whether or not it still applies, to decide if anything needs to be
done with that sentence.
Also the RATIONALE says (starting line 111979)
Since read affects the current shell execution environment,
it is generally provided as a shell regular built-in.
which doesn't make a lot of sense to say to me, given that line 11946
says:
This utility is required to be intrinsic. See Section 1.7 ...
but again I will leave it for others to decide what to do about that, and
the immediately following text, as the RATIONALE isn't exactly important.
Desired Action:
For the parts I can suggest a solution, see a note below (I prefer to do
it
that way rather than include the text here, as that way I can edit it if
it
turns out to look absurd - which it very well may do).
======================================================================
Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
======================================================================
2023-10-02 13:58 kre New Issue
2023-10-02 13:58 kre Name => Robert Elz
2023-10-02 13:58 kre Section => XCU 3/read
2023-10-02 13:58 kre Page Number => 3291-3294
2023-10-02 13:58 kre Line Number => 111869-111878,
111961-111963, 11946, 11979-11980
======================================================================
