View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000309 | 1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 | Shell and Utilities | public | 2010-09-15 09:24 | 2013-04-16 13:06 |
| Reporter | geoffclare | Assigned To | ajosey | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | Objection | Type | Clarification Requested |
| Status | Closed | Resolution | Accepted As Marked | ||
| Name | Geoff Clare | ||||
| Organization | The Open Group | ||||
| User Reference | |||||
| Section | find | ||||
| Page Number | 2740 | ||||
| Line Number | 89180 | ||||
| Interp Status | Approved | ||||
| Final Accepted Text | See 0000309:0000562 | ||||
| Summary | 0000309: find -exec a b{} {} + | ||||
| Description | The requirements for the find utility are unclear regarding the following command: find . -exec a b{} {} + At line 89178 the part of the -exec primary description relating to the '+' terminator says: If more than one argument containing only the two characters "{}" is present, the behavior is unspecified. This doesn't apply here because of the use of "only". The next paragraph begins: If a utility_name or argument string contains the two characters "{}", but not just the two characters "{}", it is implementation-defined whether find replaces those two characters or uses the string without change. This allows two behaviours. The second (using the string without change) is straightforward; the problem is with the first alternative. If the "{}" characters are replaced, what should they be replaced with? Two different solutions are proposed. Option 1 just requires the string to be used without change and eliminates the problematic alternative. Option 2 makes line 89178 apply to this case by removing the word "only", thus making the behaviour unspecified. In both cases the existing "not just the two characters" text is moved to the part relating to the ';' terminator. | ||||
| Desired Action | Option 1 Append to line 89179: If a utility_name or argument string contains the two characters "{}", but not just the two characters "{}", the string shall be used without change. Delete the following text from line 89180 and append it to line 89164: If a utility_name or argument string contains the two characters "{}", but not just the two characters "{}", it is implementation-defined whether find replaces those two characters or uses the string without change. Option 2 At line 89178 change: If more than one argument containing only the two characters "{}" is present, the behavior is unspecified. to: If more than one argument containing the two characters "{}" is present, the behavior is unspecified. Delete the following text from line 89180 and append it to line 89164: If a utility_name or argument string contains the two characters "{}", but not just the two characters "{}", it is implementation-defined whether find replaces those two characters or uses the string without change. | ||||
| Tags | tc1-2008 | ||||
|
|
Interpretation response ------------------------ The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor. Rationale: ------------- Option 2 in the desired action seems the most appropriate. Notes to the Editor (not part of this interpretation): ------------------------------------------------------- At line 89178 change: If more than one argument containing only the two characters "{}" is present, the behavior is unspecified. to: If more than one argument containing the two characters "{}" is present, the behavior is unspecified. Delete the following text from line 89180 and append it to line 89164: If a utility_name or argument string contains the two characters "{}", but not just the two characters "{}", it is implementation-defined whether find replaces those two characters or uses the string without change. |
|
|
Comments are due on this interpretation by January 16 2011 |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | New Issue | |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Status | New => Under Review |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Assigned To | => ajosey |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Name | => Geoff Clare |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Organization | => The Open Group |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Section | => find |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Page Number | => 2740 |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Line Number | => 89180 |
| 2010-09-15 09:24 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => --- |
| 2010-09-15 09:29 | geoffclare | Relationship added | related to 0000310 |
| 2010-10-07 15:42 | nick | Note Added: 0000562 | |
| 2010-10-07 15:42 | nick | Status | Under Review => Interpretation Required |
| 2010-10-07 15:42 | nick | Resolution | Open => Accepted As Marked |
| 2010-10-07 15:43 | nick | Final Accepted Text | => See 0000309:0000562 |
| 2010-10-07 15:45 | geoffclare | Tag Attached: tc1-2008 | |
| 2010-10-14 16:38 | geoffclare | Interp Status | --- => Pending |
| 2010-12-16 16:15 | ajosey | Interp Status | Pending => Proposed |
| 2010-12-16 16:15 | ajosey | Note Added: 0000640 | |
| 2011-01-18 12:29 | ajosey | Interp Status | Proposed => Approved |
| 2013-04-16 13:06 | ajosey | Status | Interpretation Required => Closed |
