Re: Re: Final SD5 items from XRAT

[David Korn <yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> There was a lot of discussion about this issue back in September 2004,
> but I lost track of how it got resolved.  Can someone please clarify
> this?
> 
> XCU ERN 2 originally asked whether utilities can support, as an
> extension, usages like "ls file -l" where options follow operands.
> The proposed resolution says "no" for utilities like printf where
> operands are not file names, but it seems to leave the question open
> for utilities like ls where operands like file names (since other
> parts of POSIX have long deprecated file names with leading "-").
> 
> Is this deliberate?  That is, is it intended to allow the GNU "ls"
> behavior here for "ls file -l", or not?  The wording isn't clear to
> me.
> 

I sure hope that this is illegal.  It is worse when used in a place
where a file name can be since
        ls file *
would generate unspecified results when * matches a file beginning with -.


David Korn
yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx