From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 24 02:50:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB48237B401 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE643FE1 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:50:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5O9oHUp021599 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:50:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h5O9oHxe021598; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200306240950.h5O9oHxe021598@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org From: Wartan Hachaturow Subject: Re: standards/52972: /bin/sh arithmetic not POSIX compliant X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Wartan Hachaturow List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:50:19 -0000 The following reply was made to PR standards/52972; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wartan Hachaturow To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, schweikh@schweikhardt.net Subject: Re: standards/52972: /bin/sh arithmetic not POSIX compliant Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:46:24 +0400 On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:30:14AM -0700, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > He's wrong. The full text of section 2.6.4 is: Now, he has clarified himself, and pointed me to rationale. This is the relevant part of rationale for 2.6.4: "The syntax and semantics for arithmetic were changed for the ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 standard. The language is essentially a pure arithmetic evaluator of constants and operators (excluding assignment) and represents a simple subset of the previous arithmetic language (which was derived from the KornShell "(())" construct)." .. "The portion of the ISO C standard arithmetic operations selected corresponds to the operations historically supported in the KornShell." In other words, rationale says that only constants and operators are the language of arithmetic evaluation, and assignment shouldn't be supported. Jens, perhaps, you may clarify further, what particular test you've run, post snippets of the code in question? If the tests are valid and verified OpenGroup ones, we may have to ask them for clarification, or issue a defect report.. -- Regards, Wartan.