Re: unset does not remove functions like a[b] unless -f is specified

[Robert Elz]

    Date:        Sun, 5 Feb 2023 10:02:09 +0900
    From:        Koichi Murase <myoga.murase@gmail.com>
    Message-ID:  
<CAFLRLk-48tLdo5+4Snk+uvNUBcooBpxGrQyUvwuKToPcs55XVw@mail.gmail.com>

  | In the previous time that I raised the discussion about ``no-argument
  | return in trap handlers'', I directly posted an email to the mailing
  | list [1]. Fortunately, I got about ten replies but later,
  | unfortunately, it was finally forgotten without any conclusion.

Yes, discussions on the mailing list alone tend to end up going nowhere.

That doesn't mean they're useless - they can help correct misunderstandings,
and sometimes lead to defect reports beng made.

They're also useful for long discussions about issues that have been
raised, which don't really belong in the mantis database.   Such
discussions can be used to alter opinions and provide information which
can be, and often is, used when decisions are made about the issue.
They can also get issues believed to be closed reopened.

  | The present discussion about the function name is not really
  | a bug of the standard, but there seem to be also questions about the
  | standard in the issue list, so I guess I can also submit a discussion
  | with a possible change for marking it as `unspecified'.

Enter it as an "enhancement" request (when you get to do it).   That's
for things where the standard could be made better, but which aren't
actual defects.

  | However, it
  | seems I need a separate account in the tracker to create an issue in
  | the tracker, and I need to contact the Austin Group Chair to apply for
  | the account. I'll contact the chair, but it might take some time to
  | get an account and open an issue.

That's unlikely to happen over the weekend, but if you send e-mail now,
there's no reason it couldn't get done Monday or Tuesday.

kre