Re: Interpretations for 30 day review

[Geoff Clare <gwc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Josey <ajosey@opengroup.org> wrote, on 29 Aug 2009:
> 
> The following interpretations are now starting a 30 day
> comment period. This includes interpretations for both the 2008 and 2004
> editions of the standard.

Four of these interpretations are missing a note in Mantis to indicate
what the interpretation response should be (i.e. defect case, ambiguous
case, etc.).  My thoughts are that they should be:

> 0000050  XCU  acceptance of shell variables with negative values is not clear
> http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=50

ambiguous case

> 0000052  XCU  description of set -e does not match existing practice
> http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=52

defect case

> 0000063  XSH  EPERM error under futimens() appears to be faulty
> http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=63

ambiguous case

> 0000066  XSH  sigaction/signal lists are different
> http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=66

defect case

-- 
Geoff Clare <g.clare@opengroup.org>
The Open Group, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading, RG1 1LX, England