On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:52:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> > In interactive mode, job control (-m) is enabled automatically. Some
> > shells, such as FreeBSD sh, dash, mksh and heirloom-sh-050706, allow
> > starting an interactive shell without
Date:Wed, 7 Jun 2017 20:56:17 +0100
From:Stephane CHAZELAS
Message-ID: <20170607195617.gf5...@chaz.gmail.com>
| I imagine that text was there for some reason.
I have always thought that what was important was the "one" and that
the
2017-06-07 12:41:31 -0400, shwares...@aol.com:
> Because of the 'dot or dot-dot', not 'dot and dot-dot', I construe 'they'
> as "one or the other, or both if both missing" shall not be returned. You
> don't synthesize an unnamed or assigned name record for one that isn't
> present, to relate
2017-06-07 10:58:58 -0400, shwares...@aol.com:
> Applications can be written portably and are expected to take into account
> a generic file operand is '.' or '..' already; readdir() may or may
> not include '.' or '..' values whenever a path crosses a device mount
> boundary. It may only
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> So pdksh/zsh globs are currently only non-compliant in that they
> may not match what readdir() returns, but in anycase,
> applications cannot make much assumption on whether "." or ".."
> should be returned, so that compliance issue is not
2017-06-07 12:24:33 +0100, Geoff Clare:
[...]
> > Yes, it's hard to tell what behaviour one can rely on with the
> > current text. Is opendir(".") required to open the current
> > directory even if there's no "." entry in the current directory
> > (same for "..")? Is foo/./bar required to be the
Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> In interactive mode, job control (-m) is enabled automatically. Some
> shells, such as FreeBSD sh, dash, mksh and heirloom-sh-050706, allow
> starting an interactive shell without job control using sh +m, while
> other shells, such as bash and ksh93, do
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
> Yes, it's hard to tell what behaviour one can rely on with the
> current text. Is opendir(".") required to open the current
> directory even if there's no "." entry in the current directory
> (same for "..")? Is foo/./bar required to be
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote, on 07 Jun 2017:
>
> 2017-06-07 12:41:52 +0200, Joerg Schilling:
> > Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have an opinion on whether POSIX should allow the
> > > expansion of globs not to include "." and ".."
2017-06-07 12:41:52 +0200, Joerg Schilling:
> Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>
> > Do you have an opinion on whether POSIX should allow the
> > expansion of globs not to include "." and ".." by default?
>
> The fact that some filesystems include "." and ".." in the
Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> In interactive mode, job control (-m) is enabled automatically. Some
This is true for ksh, but not required by POSIX.
> shells, such as FreeBSD sh, dash, mksh and heirloom-sh-050706, allow
You are right for FreeBSD sh, dash and mksh, but the beirloom
2017-06-07 09:03:52 +0100, Geoff Clare:
> Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 06 Jun 2017:
[...]
> > rm -rf ./ ../
> >
> > AFAICT, with the above wording, that doesn't allow rm
> > implementations to apply that safeguard in those cases (even
> > though it's also a problem
12 matches
Mail list logo