The following reply was made to PR bin/33956; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
To: current-users@NetBSD.org, gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/33956: -current /bin/sh possible regression 
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:38:20 -0500

 In message <20060712001618.GC923@falu.nl>, Rhialto writes:
 >Even if one argued that "Testing ${@} fnord" is a meaningful
 >substitution, then according to the above definition, it should produce
 >zero arguments if there are no positional parameters. Yet,
 >
 >    sh -c 'foo() { echo "Testing ${@} fnord"; }; foo'
 >
 >produces (on 3.0)
 >
 >    Testing  fnord
 >
 >which I must consider a bug.
 
 Why?  The @ expanded to nothing, as expected.  It doesn't prevent other
 variables from expanding, or other text from continuing to exist.
 
 -s