Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | | Date | Mon, 5 Apr 1999 19:09:56 +0400 (MSD) | | Subject | Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman |
| |
In <199904051451.QAA00721@wsdw01.win.tue.nl> Guest section DW (dwguest@win.tue.nl) wrote: GD> From: "Khimenko Victor" <khim@sch57.msk.ru>
>> It's BROKEN -- it breaks the semantics of true(1) and false(1), which >> among other things is that they ignore any arguments. Hence it is a >> BUG.
GD> It can be called BUG ONLY if you can show some POSIX specification where GD> said that true(1) and false(1) must ignore any arguments. Till not shown GD> otherwise it's FEATURE. You can like or dislike this FEATURE but you can GD> not clain that it's BUG !
GD> Hmm - probably I shouldnt answer, but now that I have POSIX.2 here next to me:
GD> 4.23 false: GD> Options: None. GD> Operands: None. GD> Exit Status: The false utility always shall exit with a value other than zero.
GD> Since GNU false sometimes does `exit 0' it certainly is not POSIX compliant.
GNU false ALWAYS "exit with value other then zero" when called without options and operands. I can not see how text above imply that false should IGNORE arguments. If such thing as additional arguments not specified by POSIX are bugs then [almost] all GNU utilities are buggy: most of them will allow additional arguments.
When GNU true and false used according to POSIX (i.e. without arguments) then work like POSIX specify.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |