.
Last update: 1997-05-20
9945-2-122
_____________________________________________________________________________
Topic: mailx command argument expansion for filenames
Relevant Sections: 4.40.7.2
Defect Report:
-----------------------
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:51:46 -0700
From: kdawson@jurassic-52.Eng.Sun.COM (ken dawson [contractor])
Dear Standards Board,
I would like to request a formal interpretation on the following
issue concerning the mailx utility in POSIX.2.
In section 4.40.7.2 (P348, L6566-6570), it says:
File names, where expected, shall be subjected to the process of
shell word expansions (see 3.6); if more than a single pathname
results and the command is expecting one file, the effects are
unspecified. If the file name begins with an unquoted plus sign, it
shall not be expanded, but treated as the named file (less the
leading plus) in the folder directory. (See the folder variable.)
While this language is clear, the actual historical behavior of this
command should be expressed as follows (change bars are supplied on the
left) :
File names, where expected, shall be subjected to the following
transformations, in sequence:
If the file name begins with an unquoted plus sign, and the
folder variable is defined (see the folder variable), the
plus sign shall be replaced by the value of the folder
variable followed by a slash; if the folder variable is unset
or is set to null, the filename shall be unchanged.
Shell word expansions shall be applied to the file name (see
3.6); if more than a single pathname results from this
expansion and the command is expecting one file, the effects
are unspecified.
I believe that this variance from actual historic practice was not
intended. The rationale for mailx seems to carefully point out the cases
where the standard differs from historic practice, but does not mention
this issue.
Interpretation response
------------------------
The standard states the behavior for file name expansion in mailx and
conforming implementations must conform to this. However, concerns have
been raised about this which are being referred to the sponsor.
Rationale
-------------
None.
Forwarded to Interpretations group: May 16 1995
Proposed resolution forwarded: Aug 11 1995
Finalized: Sept 12 1995