Subject: Re: bin/33956: -current /bin/sh possible regression
To: Peter Seebach <>
From: Rhialto <>
List: current-users
Date: 07/12/2006 02:54:06
On Tue 11 Jul 2006 at 19:38:20 -0500, Peter Seebach wrote:
> Why?  The @ expanded to nothing, as expected.  It doesn't prevent other
> variables from expanding, or other text from continuing to exist.

Note that definition says "arguments". I'll have to assume it says that
for a reason. So there shall be zero arguments, if there are no
positional parameters, and echo shall print nothing (except for a
newline). I don't think you can argue with that.

Let me take this opportunity, as a devil's advocate, of another possible
generalisation of "$@" to "foo $@ bar". I would argue that

    sh -c 'foo() { printargv "Testing ${@} fnord"; }; foo a b'

should print

    Testing a fnord Testing b fnord

and there is nothing in the definition that will contradict this

> -s
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert      -- You author it, and I'll reader it.
\X/ rhialto/at/        -- Cetero censeo "authored" delendum esse.