Re: Issues with exported functions

[Gabriel Corona]

> I'd much rather prefer the use of an invalid shell name (such as
> f()=...) than a valid shell name (BASH_FUNCTION_foo=()...).

Using a BASH_ prefix has some advantages:

 * Anyone setting such a variable, might expect it could change the
   behaviour of bash. Any script allowing setting untrusted BASH_
   variables to untrusted values should probably expect bad things to
   happen.

 * Anyone seeing such a variable (in env) might expect it to change
   the behaviour of bash. If I see foo(), in env I would probably not
   think "Of course, it will change bash behaviour."

 * It avoids name clashes: whateversh might want to use foo() for its
   own (different) purpose.

Maybe both could be used, BASH_FUNCTION_foo()?

Is there any portability issue with using '()' on some OSes?

-- 
Gabriel