From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5349 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2002 19:17:47 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Jun 2002 19:17:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 28535 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2002 19:17:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 17341 Received: (qmail 28523 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2002 19:17:36 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:17:33 -0700 From: Jos Backus To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: posix compliance Message-ID: <20020620191755.GA84784@lizzy.catnook.com> Reply-To: jos@catnook.com Mail-Followup-To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk References: <20020620180526.GA65950@lizzy.catnook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote: > Assignable positional parameters are an intentional feature. There's no > way they can cause a problem, because a POSIX conforming shell script must > not even attempt it. (Even in POSIX the positional parameters can be > replaced with the `set' builtin, so claiming that they should be read-only > does not hold water.) Indeed, his argument that things like these were causing them lots of problems with zsh point to poorly written scripts in the first place. But of course he's not going to admit that, least of all in public with the bash maintainer standing next to him. -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ jos@catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer'