WG15 Defect Report Ref: 9945-2-55
Topic: errorbells, eb

This is an approved interpretation of 9945-2:1993.


Last update: 1997-05-20



	Topic:			errorbells, eb
	Relevant Sections:

Defect Report:

Reference: Page 536, Section, "errorbells, eb"

There are things in the specification of the ex/vi errorbells
option in 9945-2:1993 that I believe differ from historic practice.

1: Historically, the open/visual modes were not affected by the
   errorbells option.  I'm not sure that this is not specified
   by 9945-2:1993, but I can't find any discussion of how vi and
   ex relate in terms of the various ex options that vi can set.

2: It was not historic practice to precede error messages with an
   alert action if errorbells was set, as the first sentence of
   the paragraph requires.  The historic behavior was that if the
   editor was in ex mode, and there was no standout mode capability
   for the terminal, and errorbells was set, error messages were
   announced by an alert character.

   I think that the intent of the standard is correct -- the last
   sentence in the paragraph appears to contradict the first one.
   The second sentence may not actually be English.  My guess is
   that someone was trying to discuss the visual bell capabilities
   of vi, but, as far as I know, the errorbells option did not effect

Was it the intent of the POSIX 9945-2 standard to change historic
practice in these ways?

There's a typo on page 537, line 1868, "the the".

(Keith Bostic			bostic@cs.berkeley.edu)

WG15 response for 9945-2:1993
The wording in the sentence beginning on page 537 line 1864 along with the 
last sentence starting on line 1870 are in conflict and therefore the action 
to be taken by an implementation when the errorbells,eb option is set is 

The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can 
be made between alternative implementations based on this.  This is being 
referred to the sponsor.

Rationale for Interpretation: