A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1955 ====================================================================== Reported By: luna Assigned To: ajosey ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2024)/Issue8 Issue ID: 1955 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Under Review Name: Luna Organization: User Reference: Section: 2.6.3 Page Number: 2489 Line Number: 80775 Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2025-11-10 18:02 UTC Last Modified: 2025-11-11 15:34 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: Behaviour is unclear when a parameter expands to another valid expansion ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0007313) luna (reporter) - 2025-11-11 15:34 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1955#c7313 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, I understand that. I tried again, and got "`whoami`". I guess I typod x=`'whoami'` the first time. ksh(1) also prints "`whoami`" I still think that "beginning to end" should be made clearer to prevent this misreading. Maybe write it as e.g. "T.e., p.e., c.s., and a.e. shall be performed, through the beginning of the word to the end of it, but the results of these expansions shall not be further expanded by the same rules in this step.". I admit that this is a matter of whether one thinks that standards should contain only the minimum normative text, or try to be actively helpful to the implementer/casual reader. If the former is the case here, I'd suggest clarifying this in informative text. I admit that I ran into this while referencing the standard to educate myself on the specifics, not reading it fully to implement it. I can understand that someone in the latter position wouldn't have this issue. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2025-11-10 18:02 luna New Issue 2025-11-10 18:02 luna Status New => Under Review 2025-11-10 18:02 luna Assigned To => ajosey 2025-11-10 18:42 luna Note Added: 0007305 2025-11-10 18:51 calestyo Note Added: 0007306 2025-11-10 18:57 luna Note Added: 0007307 2025-11-10 20:55 stephane Note Added: 0007308 2025-11-10 21:16 luna Note Added: 0007309 2025-11-11 04:38 dannyniu Note Added: 0007310 2025-11-11 10:52 geoffclare Project 1003.1(2004)/Issue 6 => 1003.1(2024)/Issue8 2025-11-11 15:34 luna Note Added: 0007313 ======================================================================
