[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:02:44 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1

On 6/27/16 1:15 PM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>     On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey <address@hidden
>     <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>     > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote:
>     >> Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash
>     >> that we allow other characters besides [[:alnum:]_] when declaring
>     >> function names in non-POSIX mode.
>     >
>     > Is there some new reason to do this now?
>     >
>     Not really, but sometimes I encounter people saying such practice of
>     using characters besides those allowed by POSIX is wrong simply
>     because it is undocumented.  I just thought about making a suggestion
>     today, and hope that it gets updated before 4.4.
>     --
>     konsolebox
> Chet is one of these people ;)
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2011-04/msg00040.html

Not wrong because it's undocumented.  At the time, I said it was a bad idea
because it didn't integrate well with other parts of the shell (like unset)
that require valid identifiers as arguments.  I'm not going to remove the

``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    address@hidden    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]