I am not sure what is going on here, but I just loaded up this file and it parsed just fine.
Now, I KNOW that this didn't work when I reported it. And Stefan was able to reproduce it.
I wonder if Stefan can still reproduce?
Since I can't reproduce, I have no issue with closing. If it regresses, I'll open a new issue, making a note of the versions of various packages, which would certainly help diagnosis.
Stefan, it's been a while - can you send me a link to my original bug report?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org At: 08/12/20 12:00:09
To: Matthew Persico (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A )
Subject: Re: bug#21477: 24.4; Imenu - improper parse of shell function names
Andreas Schwab <email@example.com> writes:
> It's a POSIX extension, enforced in POSIX mode:
> 13. Function names must be valid shell 'name's. That is, they may not
> contain characters other than letters, digits, and underscores, and
> may not start with a digit. Declaring a function with an invalid
> name causes a fatal syntax error in non-interactive shells.
Right. Well, then adding syntax highlighting here would in a way
encourage people to write non-POSIX conformant shell code, which even if
it happens to work in Bash sounds like a bad idea.
So I'm leaning towards closing this bug report as wontfix.
Any other opinions?