On 5/27/19 6:10 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think Chet Ramey did a pretty good explanation in the linked mailing >> list about why this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "POSIX" >> means, but just to be extra sure... you are aware that POSIX defines >> `command ^` as the only true, correct POSIX way to suppress shell >> extensions and functions and ensure lookup as a true utility (and "^" is > > This is not true: > > "command" prevents to use functions, but it does not prevent to use shell > extensions that are built in commands. Pretty sure that's exactly what I said, but whatever. (`cd` is a "utility" even though it's a bit unique in that it's literally impossible to implement as an external binary, that's about as definite as it's likely to get.) Anyway if any shell implemented the "^" program as an in-process shell builtin command, I can only assume that for such a standardized thing as it would have to be, it would presume to be compatible with Neven Sajko's `exec(3)`'able version and life will be great (and also POSIX-compatible). -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
