From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4409 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2002 18:13:57 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Jun 2002 18:13:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 14943 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2002 18:13:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 17340 Received: (qmail 14932 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2002 18:13:52 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:13:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Sender: schaefer@ns1.sodaware.com To: Jos Backus cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: posix compliance In-Reply-To: <20020620180526.GA65950@lizzy.catnook.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Jos Backus wrote: > A quick report from UseNIX: One thing Jordan Hubbard of Apple mentioned was > that our positional parameters ($1, $2, etc.) are assignable whereas they are > not in bash (Chet Ramey, who was also present, confirmed this). The bash > behavior is apparently what POSIX specifies. 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.) > He also again complained about executable size and footprint (zsh vs. > bash), which I think was addressed earlier I don't have an immediate answer to that, although having looked briefly at the bash2 web site the other day and it's possible that it now has even more of its "builtins" as loadable modules than zsh does.