Re: [exim] Undocumented surprise in ${run ...} processing

On 2014-07-02 22:09, Todd Lyons wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Chris Siebenmann <cks@???>
> wrote:
>> and then expanded each in place. If an argument wound up empty after
>> expansion, it would be preserved (as empty). This was based on the
>> documentation wording that 'the command and its arguments are first
>> expanded *separately*' (emphasis mine).
>
> Yeah, that definitely implies that it would retain position.

That arguably depends how one groups the terms - it could be read as
simply saying that the command is expanded separately from its
arguments. The fact that we're having this discussion suggests it could
do with some clarification, however. :-)

fwiw, even though the documentation for $run says that a shell is not
used unless explicitly spawned, I implicitly expected that it would
quote things in a shell-like fashion (and was then surprised by the lack
of documentary confirmation one way or the other when reading Chris's
original mail).

Regards,

Adam