> From: Rocky Bernstein [mailto:rocky.bernstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:39 PM
> To: Schwarz, Konrad (CT)
> Cc: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Subject: Re: Operators in 1003.1
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Schwarz, Konrad (CT)
> > Section 2.2, Quoting, lists the characters with special meaning.
>
> Yes, this is true. However it doesn't call those characters
> "operators". Are you implying that all of the characters in section
> 2.2 with special meaning are operators?
No. However, in the part of your earlier mail that I deleted, you
write:
> Given the implication that in parsing these tokens need not have white
> space around them, wouldn't it be helpful to have a list somewhere and
> to more explicit what all of the token operators are?
This would seem to be more or less the characters with special
meaning---
irrespective of whether they are used as operators or not.
You further write:
> Also, I note
> that in some parts of the document these operators are further split
> up into other categories like "arithmetic operator" (which is relevant
> only in a particular arithmetic context?) "control operator" or
> "redirection operator" perhaps "list operator".
>
> Again wouldn't be helpful to have these listed all in one place
somewhere?
I don't see how such a list would be of much benefit. Either one is
interested
in the semantics of an operator; then a simple list does not really
help. Or one is
interested in knowing which characters require quoting; this is defined
in the
section I mentioned above.
On the other hand, I feel that the Shell document is large already;
adding bulk
does not necessarily add to its usefulness.
Additionally, I imagine that the various outgrowths of the Shell do not
want to standardize
on a fixed set of operators as this would limit their ability to evolve
syntactically.
Regards,
Konrad Schwarz
|