Re: make test errata (part 2)

[Chet Ramey]

On 12/14/24 9:35 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
> (see first part for background)
>
> I've patched Bash to merge “shopt” and “set -o”, and now “make tests”
> reports some minor differences. I would like some feedback on whether
> they're significant enough to warrant fixing.

I never did hear why exactly you decided to do this. I understand what
you're doing, and your goals, just not what prompted it.

> I've tried to mimic the current behaviour as closely as possible, including
> keeping underscores for shopt names and hyphens for set -o names, and
> limiting the display from “set -o” to the same old list of options.

As long as `set -o' acts on the same old list of options. I basically
abandoned `set -o' to POSIX and put all new options into shopt.

> However I've made a conscious choice not to apply the corresponding limit
> to “shopt”, intending to promote the use of “shopt” as the “normal” command
> to use for all options. This increases the list displayed by “shopt” by
> about 50%.

You can already use shopt for all options, since it supports -o.

> I've also widened the column format because many of the names are longer
> than 15 bytes, and the current list is looking decidedly untidy as a result.

This is a reasonable idea.

> I've tried to keep the current division of options when *populating*
> BASHOPTS and SHELLOPTS, but I haven't included a check to ignore (or
> complain about) options that are in the “wrong” variable when *reading*
> them at startup. Does it matter if options are honoured even when they're
> in the wrong one out of BASHOPTS and SHELLOPTS? Are there any security
> implications?

They're mostly parallel, and have the same restrictions, but I would keep
the historical behavior.

> Similarly the command line options -o and -O become interchangeable, except
> for their order of evaluation. Does the deferred processing of -O

Yes, it matters. These have to override the normal interactive/non-
interactive startup.

> Lastly, the current order for “$-” seems to be “abefhikmptuvxBCEHIPTcs”,

These are the options you can set with `set', followed by the invocation-
only options.

Yes, you could run `set -i' until bash-4.4, even though it didn't really
do anything. I changed it after a bug-bash discussion in 2015.


> PS2: in the current version of Bash, BASHOPTS can contain
> ‘interactive_comments’ and SHELLOPTS can contain ‘interactive-comments’.
> Does this duplication serve any useful purpose?

History. It's been this way since before shopt was introduced in 1994.

--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature