> 2011-05-24 17:23:20 -0400, Chet Ramey:
> [...]
> > > Why would you put any restriction on the allowed name of a function?
> [...]
> > Because Posix does, and because unset without -f has to enforce the variable
> > name restrictions. (Though the language has been relaxed in the latest
> > standa
2011-05-24 17:23:20 -0400, Chet Ramey:
[...]
> > Why would you put any restriction on the allowed name of a function?
[...]
> Because Posix does, and because unset without -f has to enforce the variable
> name restrictions. (Though the language has been relaxed in the latest
> standard.)
[...]
PO
> 2011-04-11, 09:51(-04), Chet Ramey:
> >> Machine Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu
> >>
> >> Bash Version: 4.2
> >> Patch Level: 8
> >> Release Status: release
> >>
> >> Description:
> >>man bash is currently lacking information on what is allowed for
> >> function
> >>names. It implies name wit
2011-04-11, 09:51(-04), Chet Ramey:
>> Machine Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu
>>
>> Bash Version: 4.2
>> Patch Level: 8
>> Release Status: release
>>
>> Description:
>> man bash is currently lacking information on what is allowed for
>> function
>> names. It implies name with name () compound
Chet Ramey wrote:
It was a mistake to allow such characters in function names (`unset' doesn't
work to unset them without forcing -f, for instance). We're stuck with them
for backwards compatibility, but I don't have to encourage their use.
---
Why doesn't bash create some sort of "deprecate
> Machine Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu
>
> Bash Version: 4.2
> Patch Level: 8
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
> man bash is currently lacking information on what is allowed for
> function
> names. It implies name with name () compound-command [redirection] and
> at the st
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i686
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/loc
