| To: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: echo rationale? |
| From: | Andrew Josey <yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Apr 2002 07:40:04 +0100 |
hi Ben It was part of the merger of the semantics from the Single UNIX Specification Version 2. This was a major part of the scope for the 2001 revision, the change history for the page notes this. You could always provide the POSIX semantics in a different binary or only when say an environment variable such as POSIXLY_CORRECT is true. Why not participate in the meeting next week if you want to talk to some of the folks to find out more? (Reading is not too far from Cambridge:-) regards Andrew ----- Andrew Josey The Open Group Austin Group Chair Apex Plaza,Forbury Road, Email: yyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel: +44 118 9508311 ext 2250 Fax: +44 118 9500110 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Paul Eggert |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Defect in XSH confstr,pathconf,sysconf, Andrew Josey |
| Previous by Thread: | echo rationale?, Ben Harris |
| Next by Thread: | Re: echo rationale?, Ben Harris |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |