On 4/3/13 4:21 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Chris Down <ch...@chrisdown.name> wrote: > >> On 2013-04-03 11:00, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: >>>>>> It doesn't work because you are trying to redefine an existing >>>>>> readonly variable. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but I'm explicitly redefining it locally, only for this function. >>>>> And this works for variables previously defined in the calling >> function. >>>> >>>> You're not redefining it locally, you are unsuccessfully trying to >> override a >>>> global. >>> >> > Still Nikolai has a point. > It's not clear why readonly variable can be overridden when the variable is > declared readonly in the scope of an englobing function but not if it is > declared readonly in the global scope.
A variable is declared readonly for a reason, and, since readonly variables may not be assigned to, I don't believe you should be able to override a readonly variable by declaring it local to a function. I did, however reluctantly, allow a way to do this by permitting a function writer to override local readonly variables (given bash's dynamic scoping) or to override global readonly variables when several levels down in the call stack. The current behavior is a compromise. Compromises always come back to bite you because the inconsistencies that result are more trouble than the flexibility they offer is worth. > I seem to recall this has been discussed on this list at some point) Quite a few times. Try http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2011-02/msg00105.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2012-04/msg00073.html It's about time for the discussion to happen again. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
