2017-06-13 07:22:10 +0100, Stephane Chazelas:
> 2017-06-13 00:02:34 +0200, Jilles Tjoelker:
> [...]
> > I think this is supposed to be handled by rule 1 in the first (non-yacc)
> > part of 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules, but the text is not clear to me. For
> > example, rule 7b for non-initial words in
2017-06-13 00:02:34 +0200, Jilles Tjoelker:
[...]
> I think this is supposed to be handled by rule 1 in the first (non-yacc)
> part of 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules, but the text is not clear to me. For
> example, rule 7b for non-initial words in a simple command says rule 1
> should be applied, but r
Date:Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:02:34 +0200
From:Jilles Tjoelker
Message-ID: <20170612220234.ga26...@stack.nl>
| I think this is supposed to be handled by rule 1 in the first (non-yacc)
| part of 2.10.2 Shell Grammar Rules, but the text is not clear to me. For
| examp
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:38:45PM +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2017-06-12 20:05:49 +, Yann Régis-Gianas:
> > Dear members of the Opengroup,
> > the shell grammar is defining the non terminal for compound_list as follows:
> > compound_list : linebreak term | linebreak term separato
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, shwares...@aol.com wrote:
> This would be the XRAT volume, and Change History in individual entries...
> This is only exhaustive in coverage from when the POSIX Group was formed,
> it appears, not for earlier IEEE and OpenGroup versions. There is a table
XPG5, PDF versi
2017-06-12 20:05:49 +, Yann Régis-Gianas:
> Dear members of the Opengroup,
>
> the shell grammar is defining the non terminal for compound_list as follows:
>
> compound_list : linebreak term | linebreak term separator ;
>
> and this non terminal is used in compound_commands like "until
This would be the XRAT volume, and Change History in individual entries...
This is only exhaustive in coverage from when the POSIX Group was formed,
it appears, not for earlier IEEE and OpenGroup versions. There is a table
of when various interfaces became part of the standard that A.Josey pu
* Yann Régis-Gianas [2017-06-12 21:58]:
> Dear members of the opengroup,
>
> is there a document, some kind of ChangeLog, that would summarize the
> differences between the issues of the specification?
Yes, they are part of the rationale, look for the subsections named
"Change History".
--
Guid
Dear members of the Opengroup,
the shell grammar is defining the non terminal for compound_list as follows:
compound_list : linebreak term | linebreak term separator ;
and this non terminal is used in compound_commands like "until" for
instance:
until_clause : Until compoun
Dear members of the opengroup,
is there a document, some kind of ChangeLog, that would summarize the
differences between the issues of the specification?
Best regards,
--
Yann Régis-Gianas
Le ven. 9 juin 2017 à 18:07, Wheeler, David A a écrit :
> I believe copyright laws typically allow quotations, since otherwise it'd
> be impossible to have any kind of scientific work. Under US law, this is
> part of "fair use".
>
> I'm not as familiar with French law, but I believe it permits q
Thanks for the links!
Le lun. 12 juin 2017 à 01:57, Joe Gwinn a écrit :
> Yann,
>
>
>
> This sounds like it falls under the Fair Use doctrine in the US:
>
>
>
> .< http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/>
>
>
>
> .< https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html>
>
>
>
Le ven. 9 juin 2017 à 16:32, Joerg Schilling <
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> a écrit :
> Yann Régis-Gianas wrote:
> If you plan to use the BNF grammar for the shell that is in the standard,
> then it may be of interest that this is most likely not correct.
>
Actually, we may have found a
Hello Andrew,
Le ven. 9 juin 2017 à 12:58, Andrew Josey a écrit :
> You should write to austin-group-permissions(at)opengroup.org with your
> request, explaining which materials (specific man pages) you need and the
> purpose.
>
I will do that. Thanks.
> In general we like to support open sou
Hi Alexander,
that was exactly how it behaved before the change to the specification,
and it makes perfect sense to me (and I'm using POSIX threads very
intensively). If you don't want it to test the cancellation, you would
explicitly disable cancellation at certain points in the thread. This is
c
Well, you want cancellation points with timeouts perform test cancel for
you (if cancellation points do not go into a suspended state, whatever
that means). That does not sound right to me.
regards,
alexander.
From: Dimitri Staessens
To: Alexander Terekhov ,
austin-group-l@opengroup.o
2017-06-12 09:58:30 +0100, Geoff Clare:
[...]
> > - In the second case (the one in FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris at
> > least), that's the inode number of a file we
> > cannot access by that path (and again, applications using
> > d_inos to detect hard links could be fooled).
[...]
> You say tha
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1142
==
Reported By:dancol
Assigned To:
===
Hi Alexander,
thanks for your response.
On 06/12/17 09:39, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > but return ETIMEDOUT and leave the cancellation state pending.
>
> so that you can call pthread_testcancel() upon ETIMEDOUT return (if
> cancel
> is more important too you than a timeout).
Yes, I know
Hi,
> but return ETIMEDOUT and leave the cancellation state pending.
so that you can call pthread_testcancel() upon ETIMEDOUT return (if cancel
is more important too you than a timeout).
I don't see what is wrong here.
regards,
alexander.
From: Dimitri Staessens
To: shwares...@aol.
Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 09 Jun 2017:
>
> 2017-06-09 15:46:56 +0100, Stephane Chazelas:
> [...]
> > In addition to leaving it unspecified whether a "." or ".."
> > entry is returned, we may also want to clarify (or leave
> > unspecified) what d_ino the ".." entry may have for mount-points
> > a
21 matches
Mail list logo
