There is a macro that drops in the correct wording here (\*(St as I recall);
It is replaced by the highest level approving body. When the document is an
approved ISO standard, this string magically becomes "this part of ISO/IEC
9945".
On your second question you have a good point, though the "#!" stuff is not
a part of the spec. Therefore, a perl script (or any other script) is not a
portable utility and is therefore out of scope; by this definition they are
not utilities. There is no mechanism in the standard to support any type of
utility that is not either a binary or shell script.
--
Nick Stoughton
Webvan Group Inc Usenix Standards Liaison
650 627 3277 510 366 6176 (cell)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keld Jørn Simonsen [mailto:yyyy@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 9:52 AM
> To: Andrew Josey
> Cc: yyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Teleconference Minutes from 16th December 1999
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 02:46:32PM +0000, Andrew Josey wrote:
> > The system may implement certain utilities as shell functions (see
> > the Commands and Utilities volume of IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, Section
> > 2.9.5, Function Definition Command) or built-in utilities,
> but only an
> > application that is aware of the command search order
> described in the
> > Commands and Utilities volume of IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x,
> Section 2.9.1.1,
> > Command Search and Execution or of performance
> characteristics can discern
> > differences between the behavior of such a function or
> built-in utility
> > and that of an executable file.
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1. IEEE Std ... - I think we need to have another way of referencing
> the standards. I would of cause replace IEEE Std. with ISO/IEC 9945..
> but that would possibly be unacceptable to the IEEE people.
> Could we find some middle ground, like "this specification" and
> then talk about the "Command and utilities volume" etc?
> Would ISO and IEEE and TOG beOK on such a way of referencing?
>
> 2. What about perl scripts etc, that are neither binary nor
> shell scripts, yet executable? Should they be called utilities too?
>
> Keld
>
>
|