Email List: Xaustin-review-lX
[All Lists]

RE: Defect in XCU Token Recognition

To: <yyyy@xxxxxxxx>, <yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Defect in XCU Token Recognition
From: "Mark Funkenhauser" <yyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:38:31 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: yyyy@xxxxxxxx [mailto:yyyy@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 4:07 PM
> To: yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Defect in XCU Token Recognition
> 
> 
>       Defect report from : Miloslav Trmac , N/A
> @ page 32 line 1304,1328-1330 section Token Recognition 
> editorial {rhl100970}
> 
> Problem:
> 
> Edition of Specification (Year): 2001
> 
> Defect code :  1. Error
> 
> Currently, XCU 2.3 specifies that shell command language in terms
> of <blank>s, which makes the interpretation of any shell script
> dependent on the LC_CTYPE category of current locale.

It's not just <blanks>, but the interpretation of all characters 
in a shell script is dependent on LC_CTYPE.
From ISO/IEC 9945-3, 2002, see page 850, line 32804.

> 
> Aside from the obvious result that a single shell script may or
> may not work in a different environment, this also puts unnecessary
> burden on implementors (effectively requiring a call on isblank ()
> on each input character). There is at least one widely used
> shell implementation (bash) that in fact does not honor the LC_CTYPE
> category.

Really ?  You think so ?
That's not what the man page says.
That's not what the source code says (I only have version 2.05b)

> 
> In order for a script to be portable, it must rely only on <space>
> and <tab> characters being interpreted as <blank>. 

Correct. And it can.  Both <space> and <tab> are always 
in the <blank> character class for all locales.


> Replacing "<blank>"
> by "<space> or <tab>" promotes shell script portability and allows
> faster shell implementations.

I don't see how this wording change improves script portability.

> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>