Re: Bug, or someone wanna explain to me why this is a POSIX feature?

[Linda Walsh]

Michael Witten wrote:
> In any case, even if `no_empty_cmd_completion' were to behave as Linda
> expected, her tabs would still get eaten when pasted on the interactive
> command line.
---
        Which is what Linda expects...
the function definition wouldn't hold spaces or tabs or whitespace unless
it is quoted.

        She just doesn't expect, when pasting a function
that is from a source file into her shell, scads of output that is
unexpected, unwanted, and more than a bit confusing.

        Fortunately, if you have the function 'well formed' and 'well defined',
it seems to make no difference as far as defining the actual function,
BUT having all the names of my current dir blatted out for each tab
char is a pain.

        So don't assume or infer that Linda wanted the tabs included in bash's
internal function representation.   She just didn't want the blather.

        Reasonable?  Or is someone going to tell me why blather is a desired
and wanted feature (under one standard or another! ;-))...