On 29 Jan 2018 08:42, Paul Otto wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 28 Jan 2018 19:17, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > Making bash "source" behavior non-standard had nothing useful in it. > > > > "source" is already non-standard and not specified in POSIX. so simply by > > using it, your script is not POSIX compliant. > > That is why, incidentally, I wrote my proposed contribution the way I did > initially. In my view, while BASH treats "source" and "." the same, POSIX > doesn't allow for "source" so why not have "source" hold to the BASH > standard and "." hold to the POSIX standard? I definitely caved too quickly > on that point, and wound up with my contribution being swallowed up into a > patch that did the exact opposite of my intent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
of course POSIX allows for "source". it would be crazy to have it specify "anything not explicitly permitted in this specification is banned". it does what it does everywhere else: everything not specified is "unspecified" and thus implementations are free to do what they want. although that is a generality. in the specific case of "source", POSIX has carved out that keyword as both reserved and unspecified: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_01_01 meaning that POSIX recognizes that some shells implement it in a semi-consistent manner, but not enough (yet) to standardize it like it has with other builtins. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox