Re: v3.1.4 Files/mv bug

["Zefram" <zefram@tao.co.uk>]

Phil Pennock wrote:
>So, just how POSIX-compliant is zsh aiming to be?  What does POSIX
>actually require, anyway?

POSIX does require the historical behaviour of mv.  However, as this
mv can only be used by taking explicit action (loading/autoloading
the module), I consider POSIX conformance to be less of an issue than
it is for the shell itself.  If someone wants to write a patch to add
the copy/remove fallback to the builtin mv, I don't have a problem with
putting it into the baseline; I just don't consider the current behaviour
to be broken.

>                                But, either the shell could do it
>correctly or if the link(2) fails with EXDEV then automatically use the
>one in the PATH.

Ugly.  There are a number of nasty issues here.

>Alternatively, since they're both GPL'ed, just rip the code from the
>FSF's GNU shell-utils or wherever mv(1) normally lives ...

zsh is not GPLed, and it's written much more neatly than most GNU
programs anyway.

-zefram