Re: Bash-5.1-beta available

[Chet Ramey]

On 9/17/20 5:13 PM, Robert Elz wrote:

>   | I don't have list-specific email configs.
> 
> Are there any lists for which you want to direct replies to yourself
> rather than the list? 

That doesn't have much to do with my email configs, which are not specific
to mailing lists, since those constitute a small portion of my email.

  And aside from me, do you encounter almost anyone
> whose MUA actually implements Reply-To properly, and replies only to you?

I don't pay a lot of attention to it.


>   | Because that's where the incentives are. Nobody cares if you implement
>   | "what is right" if you fail a standards conformance test.
> 
> I guess that depends upon your objectives.   I don't care in the
> slightest about conformance tests, or their results - which is why
> I won't implement "cd -L" and why NetBSD refuses to supply exec'able
> forms of "cd" "umask" ...

Sure, but others do. You're fortunate not to have to.


>   | Then the standard needs to be clarified, doesn't it?
> 
> Yes, we were kind of at that point earlier ... and we know the result
> can only be "unspecified" which isn't really very helpful.

You never know. Geoff might just say "well, it's obviously this."

> It would be nicer if before that happens we could just agree on what
> is the better result, and do that, and try to get mksh and ksh93 to
> do the same.   Then perhaps the standard would not need to say "unspecified".

We already have two camps, and netbsd/freebsd/historical sh are the ones
that print \"A\". Bash (current beta version), yash, dash, ksh93, and mksh
print "A".

Chet

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/