A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1914 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                rillig
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    1003.1(2024)/Issue8
Issue ID:                   1914
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Clarification Requested
Severity:                   Editorial
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     New
Name:                       Roland Illig 
Organization:                
User Reference:              
Section:                    Issue 8, Volume 3, expr 
Page Number:                2916 
Line Number:                97319, 97321 
Interp Status:              --- 
Final Accepted Text:         
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2025-03-15 16:20 UTC
Last Modified:              2025-03-18 18:45 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    expr: short-circuit evaluation
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0007126) rillig (reporter) - 2025-03-18 18:45
 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1914#c7126 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
<blockquote>expr 123 \| 1 / 0</blockquote>

The implementations from GNU coreutils, NetBSD and FreeBSD check for a division
by zero. On these implementations there's the difference between returning "123"
or reporting "expr: division by zero", depending on whether the operators
perform short-circuit evaluation.

The wording seems to intentionally omit whether short-circuit evaluation is
forbidden, allowed or required, so the wording is fine with me. I just wasn't
sure whether the wording was intentional, so I had hoped for a wording that
would expression the intention more clearly. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2025-03-15 16:20 rillig         New Issue                                    
2025-03-18 10:05 geoffclare     Note Added: 0007121                          
2025-03-18 18:45 rillig         Note Added: 0007126                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(20... 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
    • [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