A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1786 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                eblake
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Issue 8 drafts
Issue ID:                   1786
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Clarification Requested
Severity:                   Objection
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     Resolved
Name:                       Eric Blake 
Organization:               Red Hat 
User Reference:             ebb.ed 
Section:                    XCU ed 
Page Number:                2801 
Line Number:                92899 
Final Accepted Text:        https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1786#c6567 
Resolution:                 Accepted As Marked
Fixed in Version:           
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2023-11-02 15:13 UTC
Last Modified:              2023-11-14 16:00 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    ed behavior on non-existing filename
======================================================================
Relationships       ID      Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
related to          0000251 Forbid newline, or even bytes 1 through...
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0006570) Antonio Diaz (reporter) - 2023-11-14 16:00
 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1786#c6570 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
About the change proposed in note 6567 for page 2800 line 92845:

"If another e or q command is then attempted with no intervening command
that sets the buffer change flag, it shall take effect."

Given that the buffer change flag is already set, it is not easy for ed to
tell whether an intervening command would have set the buffer change flag.
For example, 'a\n.\n' would not set the buffer change flag, but should make
e or q repeat the warning.

Therefore I propose a wording like the following:

"If another e or q command is then attempted with no intervening command
that can set the buffer change flag, it shall take effect." 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2023-11-02 15:13 eblake         New Issue                                    
2023-11-02 15:13 eblake         Name                      => Eric Blake      
2023-11-02 15:13 eblake         Organization              => Red Hat         
2023-11-02 15:13 eblake         User Reference            => ebb.ed          
2023-11-02 15:13 eblake         Section                   => XCU ed          
2023-11-02 15:13 eblake         Page Number               => 2801            
2023-11-02 15:13 eblake         Line Number               => 92899           
2023-11-02 15:16 eblake         Relationship added       related to 0000251  
2023-11-02 15:18 eblake         Description Updated                          
2023-11-02 15:18 eblake         Desired Action Updated                       
2023-11-13 17:31 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006567                          
2023-11-13 17:32 geoffclare     Final Accepted Text       =>
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1786#c6567    
2023-11-13 17:32 geoffclare     Status                   New => Resolved     
2023-11-13 17:32 geoffclare     Resolution               Open => Accepted As
Marked
2023-11-13 17:32 geoffclare     Tag Attached: issue8                         
2023-11-14 16:00 Antonio Diaz   Note Added: 0006570                          
======================================================================


  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [Issue ... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to