Re: bash hash bug

[Linda Walsh]

Eric Blake wrote:
> POSIX states, ...

> It is too POSIX compliant
---
        I'm not running in POSIX compliant mode.  I'd just appreciate
hash working.

> > 1. If a command is executed, and a command with the same name is
> >    installed in a directory in the search path before the directory where
> >    the original command was found, the shell will execute the original
> >    command.     Use the hash command to correct this situation.
>
> Indeed, that is another detectable side-effect of hashing - an
> implementation that uses the hash should consult the hash, even if another
> candidate utility was added earlier in the search path.  
---
        It's clear that bash is attempting to implement the hash function.
It may not be REQUIRED to have a hash function, but it does.  Given that
it does have a hash function, it seems it would be good if it functioned
as expected, no?