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

From: Rhialto <rhialto@falu.nl>
To: Peter Seebach <seebs@plethora.net>
Cc: current-users@NetBSD.org, gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: bin/33956: -current /bin/sh possible regression
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:54:06 +0200

 On Tue 11 Jul 2006 at 19:38:20 -0500, Peter Seebach wrote:
 > Why?  The @ expanded to nothing, as expected.  It doesn't prevent other
 > variables from expanding, or other text from continuing to exist.
 
 Note that definition says "arguments". I'll have to assume it says that
 for a reason. So there shall be zero arguments, if there are no
 positional parameters, and echo shall print nothing (except for a
 newline). I don't think you can argue with that.
 
 Let me take this opportunity, as a devil's advocate, of another possible
 generalisation of "$@" to "foo $@ bar". I would argue that
 
     sh -c 'foo() { printargv "Testing ${@} fnord"; }; foo a b'
 
 should print
 
     Testing a fnord Testing b fnord
 
 and there is nothing in the definition that will contradict this
 interpretation.
 
 > -s
 -Olaf.
 -- 
 ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert      -- You author it, and I'll reader it.
 \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl        -- Cetero censeo "authored" delendum esse.