View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001117 | 1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 | Shell and Utilities | public | 2017-01-20 10:03 | 2024-06-11 09:09 |
| Reporter | geoffclare | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | Comment | Type | Clarification Requested |
| Status | Closed | Resolution | Accepted | ||
| Name | Geoff Clare | ||||
| Organization | The Open Group | ||||
| User Reference | |||||
| Section | command | ||||
| Page Number | 2596 | ||||
| Line Number | 84278, 84294 | ||||
| Interp Status | --- | ||||
| Final Accepted Text | See Desired Action | ||||
| Summary | 0001117: Use of "implementation-defined" in command -v / -V | ||||
| Description | The -v and -V options for "command" include the text "and any implementation-defined functions that are found using the PATH variable (as described in Section 2.9.1.1, on page 2367)". I suspect this is intended just to mean "functions defined by the implementation", but by using the defined term "implementation-defined" the text introduces a documentation requirement. This is not the appropriate place to make such a requirement - if we want the functions found by PATH to be documented, 2.9.1.1 is the place to require it, not here. | ||||
| Desired Action | For both -v and -V, change: and any implementation-defined functions that are found using the PATH variable to: and any implementation-provided functions that are found using the PATH variable | ||||
| Tags | tc3-2008 | ||||
|
|
Why not clean up the language as well (make it easier to understand rather than including invented hyphenated words), and make it say: and any functions provided by the implementation which are found using the PATH variable (and add a reference to section 2.9.1.1 so the "found using the PATH variable" can be understood.) |
|
|
The term "implementation-provided" is already used in several other places. It even has an explanation in XRAT A.1.5:The term ``implementation-defined’’ implies requirements for documentation [...] In some places the text refers to facilities supplied by the implementation that are outside the standard as implementation-supplied or implementation-provided. This is not intended to imply a requirement for documentation. If it were, the term ``implementation-defined’’ would have been used. There is already a reference to 2.9.1.1 (as quoted under Description in this bug). |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-01-20 10:03 | geoffclare | New Issue | |
| 2017-01-20 10:03 | geoffclare | Name | => Geoff Clare |
| 2017-01-20 10:03 | geoffclare | Organization | => The Open Group |
| 2017-01-20 10:03 | geoffclare | Section | => command |
| 2017-01-20 10:03 | geoffclare | Page Number | => 2596 |
| 2017-01-20 10:03 | geoffclare | Line Number | => 84278, 84294 |
| 2017-01-20 10:03 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => --- |
| 2018-06-29 18:42 | kre | Note Added: 0004048 | |
| 2018-06-30 09:31 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0004049 | |
| 2018-06-30 09:32 | geoffclare | Note Edited: 0004049 | |
| 2018-07-19 16:12 | nick | Final Accepted Text | => See Desired Action |
| 2018-07-19 16:12 | nick | Status | New => Resolved |
| 2018-07-19 16:12 | nick | Resolution | Open => Accepted |
| 2018-07-19 16:12 | nick | Tag Attached: tc3-2008 | |
| 2019-10-30 10:51 | geoffclare | Status | Resolved => Applied |
| 2024-06-11 09:09 | agadmin | Status | Applied => Closed |
