A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
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 14:20 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    The read utility needs field splitting
updates/corrections )and a little more)
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0006502) kre (reporter) - 2023-10-02 14:20
 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1778#c6502 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Re Note: 0006498 (a note added to bug:1649), where it says:

   Where IFS=: read -r header rest fails to read the "rest" properly if it
   contains one and only one ":" and it's at the end of the line.

I'm afraid I don't understand the perceived problem. What is meant there.

If I have the following script (which is a bit more general than it needs
to be for this, as it was a modified version of another script I used for
testing just how shells process read(1)):

I=      

case "" in
-i*) I=; shift;;
-I) I=unset; shift;;
esac

printf %s\n "" |
        {
                case "" in
                unset) unset IFS;;
                *) IFS="";;
                esac

                read -r var rest &&
                    printf %s\n var="[unset] rest=[unset]"
        }

and I call it /tmp/r2 and run it as

        /usr/pkg/bin/bash /tmp/r2 -i: line:

then every shell I tested produces:

var=[line] rest=[]

as the result. I'm not sure what different you'd be expecting there.

Here "every shell" includes zsh, even when not in --emulate sh mode, and
NetBSD's crappy ancient pkksh implementation. That is, apart from ksh88,
which I don't have, just about every currently used Bourne shell
derivative
which is still in active use. 

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
2023-10-02 14:00 kre            Note Added: 0006500                          
2023-10-02 14:02 kre            Note Edited: 0006500                         
2023-10-02 14:20 kre            Note Added: 0006502                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(2013... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to