[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: grep recurse fails
From: |
Dave B |
Subject: |
Re: grep recurse fails |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:37:32 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.11.4 (Linux/2.6.28-15-generic; KDE/4.2.4; x86_64; ; ) |
On Tuesday 13 October 2009, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Dave B on 10/12/2009 9:22 AM:
> > with "should" interpreted as "shall" as explained later. But then what's
> > the meaning of rule 14, and how would that be supposed to be enforced
> > when POSIXLY_CORRECT is set? It would seem to be clashing with 9.
>
> POSIX rules only hold when POSIXLY_CORRECT is set. Rule 14 states that:
>
> foo -b -ar
>
> should be recognized as
>
> foo -b -a -r
>
> and not
>
> foo -b ./-ar
>
> if all of -b, -a, and -r are recognized options (historically, not all
> utilities followed this rule: for example, 'set -vx' behaved differently
> than 'set -v -x').
Ah, then my interpretation was different. I read it as meaning that
foo -b blah -r
should be interpreted as
foo -b -r blah
or even as
foo -br blah
if -b and -r are valid options. But then I was wrong.
> Rule 9 states that, when complying with POSIX:
>
> foo a -b
>
> will be treated like
>
> foo a ./-b
>
> even though -b is recognized. There is no conflict between 9 and 14. But
> GNU Coding Standards recommend that, unless reorganizing arguments will
> break the tool's semantics (think xargs, env, sudo), then reorganizing is
> in the user's favor, so:
>
> foo a -b
>
> is treated like
>
> foo -b a
Ah, so that's a GNU thing. Thank you very much for the clarification.
--
D.