> On Apr 1, 2023, at 8:49 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 6:35 PM Lawrence Velázquez <v...@larryv.me> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, at 8:02 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> In that example they are discussing whether or not to make that >>> behavior a *requirement*. That is prescriptive. >> >> You're so busy pretending this is debate club that you're completely >> missing everyone's point, which is that the Austin Group by and >> large aims to standardize existing behavior. > > I did not miss your point, you are missing mine
Begin forwarded message: > From: Emanuele Torre <torreemanue...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: IFS field splitting doesn't conform with POSIX > Date: March 30, 2023 at 1:48:54 PM EDT > To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> > Cc: bug-bash@gnu.org > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:35:08AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> How can you say that the current implementation that bash, dash, etc. >>> use is not compliant to the POSIX specification? >> >> I have never said that. > > The title of this thread is "IFS field splitting doesn't conform with > POSIX". -- vq
