A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1915 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                steffen
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2
Issue ID:                   1915
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Clarification Requested
Severity:                   Editorial
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     New
Name:                       steffen 
Organization:                
User Reference:              
Section:                    2.5.2 
Page Number:                2479 
Line Number:                80382 
Interp Status:              --- 
Final Accepted Text:         
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2025-03-17 19:17 UTC
Last Modified:              2025-03-18 12:11 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    clarification of 2.6.5 field splitting of 2.5.2
special parameter $*
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0007124) geoffclare (manager) - 2025-03-18 12:11
 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1915#c7124 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Is the test script output supposed to be consistent across theoretically
conforming shells?

Two different outputs are expected because of the optional discarding of empty
fields (when the expansion occurs in a context where field splitting will be
performed). If we disregard posh (which we don't usually pay attention to) and
loksh (which I believe is descended from pdksh which had appallingly bad
conformance), then you're seeing three behaviours. Unfortunately, ksh88 differs
from those three:
<pre>
$ sha1sum test_ksh88.txt
c615e994262cb2a6a6469a0f967ae8feeaa40966  test_ksh88.txt
$ sed -n l test_ksh88.txt
 a  a a$
3,1= a / a ,2=a/a,3=a/a,4=$
3,*= a  a a/ a a a,$
a a   a $
2,1=a a /a a ,2= a / a ,3=/,4=$
2,*=a a  a /a a   a ,$
:a: a  a$
4,1=:a:/ a ,2=a/a,3=/,4=a$
4,*=:a::a::a/ a  a  a,$
:a: a  a$
4,1=:a:/ a ,2=a/a,3=/,4=a$
4,*=:a::a::a/ a  a  a,$
 a  a a$
3,1= a / a ,2=a/a,3=a/a,4=$
3,*= a  a a/ a a a,$
</pre>
(tested using /usr/xpg4/bin/sh on Solaris 11.4). 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2025-03-17 19:17 steffen        New Issue                                    
2025-03-18 10:31 geoffclare     Note Added: 0007122                          
2025-03-18 11:29 lanodan        Note Added: 0007123                          
2025-03-18 11:32 lanodan        Note Edited: 0007123                         
2025-03-18 12:11 geoffclare     Note Added: 0007124                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • R... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to