From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 8 14:56:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3777916A4CE for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:56:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com (n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com [129.247.16.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC3043D48 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:56:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from harti@freebsd.org) Received: from n81.sp.op.dlr.de (n81g.sp.op.dlr.de [129.247.163.1]) i88Etc2555620; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:55:39 +0200 Received: from zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (zeus.nt.op.dlr.de [129.247.173.3]) i88EtcI94914; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:55:38 +0200 Received: from beagle.kn.op.dlr.de (opkndnwsbsd178 [129.247.173.178]) by zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id i88Etbe12890; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:55:37 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:55:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: brandt@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de To: James William Pye In-Reply-To: <1094654804.85018.94.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <20040908165429.F23565@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <1094566670.80264.78.camel@localhost> <20040907163809.M20166@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <1094654804.85018.94.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: FreeBSD Standards cc: Dan Nelson Subject: Re: /bin/test asdf -ge 0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Harti Brandt List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:56:23 -0000 On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, James William Pye wrote: JWP>On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 11:45, Garrett Wollman wrote: JWP>> I agree. I believe that an interpretation request would receive the JWP>> "the standard is silent and no conformance distinction can be made" JWP>> (and therefore FreeBSD's implementation is not incorrect). It's JWP>> instructive to contrast the description of expr(1), where the standard JWP>> makes it very clear what constitutes a number. JWP> JWP>I think that you are likely to be correct here. Perhaps I will send a JWP>clarification request noting the constrast you mentioned between test(1) JWP>and expr(1) to the OpenGroup list Harti referred to. I think I will also JWP>mention arithmetic expansion, as I think the issue exists there as well. If you want to place an official request there is also a web interface I think. harti