Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:45:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> Cc: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Subject: Re: /bin/test asdf -ge 0 Message-ID: <200409071845.i87IjAu6099894@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040907163809.M20166@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <1094566670.80264.78.camel@localhost> <20040907163809.M20166@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:46:14 +0200 (CEST), Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> said: > I just checked the TC1 of Posix and it doesn't say anything in the > description of test about this. Also the 'utility argument syntax' section > talks only about range errors of numeric operands in point 6. So the > behaviour seems to be unspecified. It's not clear whether this is an > oversight or intended. I agree. I believe that an interpretation request would receive the "the standard is silent and no conformance distinction can be made" (and therefore FreeBSD's implementation is not incorrect). It's instructive to contrast the description of expr(1), where the standard makes it very clear what constitutes a number. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409071845.i87IjAu6099894>