Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> amazed Raul, of all people, had to have this pointed out to him.
I fail to see that you've demonstrated that ${1+"$@"} is different
from "$@" for any posix shell. Which, I thought, was the issue we
were talking about.
--
Raul
--
Unsubscribe? m
On 1998/08/04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Well, if $@ is empty, "$@" expands to "";
^
>
> Raul> Is this mandated by the posix standard? If so, this is an example of
> Raul> how debian's current
Hi,
This just goes to prove even Debian developers may not be up
to the task of passing all commandline arguments to a binary in a
shell script. So, if one can write a C program that handles the task,
it should be valid to have that called directly in a postinst, rather
than mess up wr
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if $@ is empty, "$@" expands to "";
Is this mandated by the posix standard? If so, this is an example of
how debian's current /bin/sh is not posix. If not, then this is
just plain bogus.
--
Raul
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe
Hi,
>>"Anselm" == Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anselm> Raul Miller wrote:
>> > How many people actually understand what ${1+"$@"} does, really?
>>
>> Interesting question. I thought it meant exactly the same thing
>> as "$@". Why?
Anselm> There used to (?) be shells that
5 matches
Mail list logo
