From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-165381-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D320D138D11
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF999E0941;
	Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:05:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD9F4E0928
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-user@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1ZEeLv-0007Zz-E4
	for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:05:03 +0200
Received: from pc123.math.cas.cz ([147.231.88.123])
        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:05:03 +0200
Received: from martin by pc123.math.cas.cz with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:05:03 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
From: Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de>
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone else having a problem with bash?
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:00:54 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <mo0gam$1ps$2@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20150706100117.0d993a04@a6> <559E5D43.2070800@gmail.com>
 <20150709124824.10f75958@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
 <559e62cc.a673980a.c356c.657e@mx.google.com> <mnlo6c$ju4$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <20150709170743.4d4ef6be@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
 <slrnmpuot4.adj.martin@lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de>
 <20150710093538.5cf8328f@digimed.co.uk>
 <slrnmpvpal.f8k.martin@lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de>
 <55a38749.kvL+R6szt5h0VGWr%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pc123.math.cas.cz
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
X-Archives-Salt: b89d444e-f574-482b-b3f4-9c69d5549c7f
X-Archives-Hash: 5fb5ec4fd2df105179c9653b64af587d

Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>
> bash vs. POSIX, as bash tried to ignore long existing
> rules just because the bash maintainer did not understand them.

Are there really several? I know only one such example:
bash insists on compound commands ("{ ... }" or "( ... )")
for the function body while according to POSIX also
non-compound commmands can form the body, e.g.

hello() echo "hello world"

is a valid function definition according to POSIX
(and thus works in dash or also zsh) but not in bash:
Rumors say that the bash maintainer intentionally
excluded this due to some misinterpretation of the
POSIX formulation.