Re: Intriguing error with arithmetic evaluation

[L. A. Walsh]

Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 8/15/16 6:15 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
>   
> > Chet Ramey wrote:
> >     
> > > The relevant change was probably the change in the set of commands to which 
> > > `set -e' applies.  The change was the result of Posix changing the semantics of 
> > > the errexit option and expanding its scope from simple commands to all commands.
> > >       
> > That doesn't explain why those not using posix mode should suffer the
> > arbitrary added incompatibility with previous code.
> >
> > POSIX was meant to describe existing code -- not cause incompatibilities with 
> > old or current code.
> >
> > POSIX disbanded and the name has changed hands to be run by people
> > unassociated with the original POSIX charter -- who created a different
> > charter.
> >     
>
> Very little in this message is accurate.
> Your conspiracy-theory game is still strong, though.
>   

If that's the case, then "what" are you claiming is the conspiracy which
I am "proposing"?

I see no conspiracy.  Only an evolution of what was, to what is,
with the main difference being that the original charter said POSIX
was to be _descriptive_, whereas the new POSIX is being prescriptive --
no longer describing what exists so people can be compatible, which had
been the original intent.  Those fact are indisputable  to anyone looking
at the original charter and current behavior.

Perhaps you can explain why bash's "normal mode" had to change?
Anyone who has had a problem with how "-e" works has done so due
to that change.  If bash had remained compatible in non-POSIX mode,
the issue for bash would not be present.