Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:30:33 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/test test.1 Message-ID: <200607271630.34673.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060727200802.GB99525@nagual.pp.ru> References: <200607271908.k6RJ8Los011463@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060727200602.GA99525@nagual.pp.ru> <20060727200802.GB99525@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 27 July 2006 16:08, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:06:02AM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 07:08:21PM +0000, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > yar 2006-07-27 19:08:21 UTC > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > Modified files: > > > bin/test test.1 > > > Log: > > > Document that both sides of -a or -o are always evaluated. This > > > "feature" doesn't seem to be in the standards or elsewhere, and > > > it is against what we are used to in C and sh(1), so put the > > > paragraph under BUGS. > > > > We should examine what POSIX or POSIX test suits says here, if any. > > I mean, in the sh(1), not in the test(1) which is command line and nothing > can be done here due to pre-parsed args. I think it would be really, really odd to have [ behave differently for different sh(1) implementations depending on whether or not [ is a built-in or not. The only sane thing there seems to be to have the behaviors be identical. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607271630.34673.jhb>