> > Description:
> >
> > There is a problem with variable scoping when variable is created from
> > assignment statement preceding function call in posix-mode. See an
> > example below.
> >
> >
> > Repeat-By:
> >
> > $ cat
On 1/28/19 6:24 PM, Martijn Dekker wrote:
> Op 27-01-19 om 22:59 schreef Chet Ramey:
>> This is a consequence of a combination of two POSIX features. First, POSIX
>> requires assignment statements preceding special builtins to create global
>> variables (POSIX has no local variables) that persist i
Op 27-01-19 om 22:59 schreef Chet Ramey:
> This is a consequence of a combination of two POSIX features. First, POSIX
> requires assignment statements preceding special builtins to create global
> variables (POSIX has no local variables) that persist in the shell context
> after the special builtin
On 1/27/19 7:58 AM, Alexander Tsoy wrote:
> Bash Version: 5.0
> Patch Level: 2
> Release Status: release
>
>
> Description:
>
> There is a problem with variable scoping when variable is created from
> assignment statement preceding function call in posix-m
/L56xx/X56xx (IBRS update)
GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
Machine Type: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Bash Version: 5.0
Patch Level: 2
Release Status: release
Description:
There is a problem with variable scoping when variable is created from
assignment statement preceding function call in posix-mode. See an
example
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 08:58:21AM +0300, Pierre Gaston wrote:
[...]
> With "sh" (a posix shell) no
> In bash you can use the builtin "local" (or declare).
[...]
See http://stchaz.free.fr/locvar.sh for one way to implement
local scope in a POSIX script.
(those functions have not been thoroughly
Dan Stromberg wrote:
Having a shell function's variable changes reflected in its caller really
kinda makes me shudder - in fact, it reminds me of gosub. It seems like
a bug waiting to happen; I'm amazed I haven't been bitten by it yet.
This is as Posix has standardized: all variables are glo
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Dan Stromberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having a shell function's variable changes reflected in its caller really
> kinda makes me shudder - in fact, it reminds me of gosub. It seems like
> a bug waiting to happen; I'm amazed I haven't been bitten by it yet.
>
Having a shell function's variable changes reflected in its caller really
kinda makes me shudder - in fact, it reminds me of gosub. It seems like
a bug waiting to happen; I'm amazed I haven't been bitten by it yet.
It occurred to me that this might help - but of course it's probably
quite a b
