[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug: illegal function name?
From: |
Eduardo Bustamante |
Subject: |
Re: bug: illegal function name? |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 10:59:18 -0800 |
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM Andrey Butirsky <butirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not quite understand what exactly is "intentional".
Accepting different sets of function names (when POSIX mode is either on/off).
> The problem is inconsistent behavior of unset '-f' flag for "normal" and
> "not-normal" function names (I'm not considering conflicting with
> variable names case).
> This is just confusing and makes the scripts error-prone, IMO.
How about this: "/Always/ use unset -f to unset functions". Also,
don't ignore the "variable names case", because that's an important
piece here.
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, (continued)
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Ilkka Virta, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Chet Ramey, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Eduardo A . Bustamante López, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?,
Eduardo Bustamante <=
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Eduardo Bustamante, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Chet Ramey, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Robert Elz, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Eduardo A . Bustamante López, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, pepa65, 2019/01/21
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Chet Ramey, 2019/01/21
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Robert Elz, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/21