Re: IFS field splitting doesn't conform with POSIX

[Lawrence Velázquez]

> On Apr 1, 2023, at 8:49 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 6:35 PM Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, at 8:02 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> In that example they are discussing whether or not to make that
>>> behavior a *requirement*. That is prescriptive.
>> 
>> You're so busy pretending this is debate club that you're completely
>> missing everyone's point, which is that the Austin Group by and
>> large aims to standardize existing behavior.
> 
> I did not miss your point, you are missing mine


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Emanuele Torre <torreemanuele6@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: IFS field splitting doesn't conform with POSIX
> Date: March 30, 2023 at 1:48:54 PM EDT
> To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> Cc: bug-bash@gnu.org
> 
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:35:08AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> How can you say that the current implementation that bash, dash, etc.
>>> use is not compliant to the POSIX specification?
>> 
>> I have never said that.
> 
> The title of this thread is "IFS field splitting doesn't conform with
> POSIX".


-- 
vq