Re: REGRESSION: shellshock patch rejects valid function names

[Eric Blake]

On 09/26/2014 02:08 PM, Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote:

[can you convince your mailer to wrap long lines?]

> 
> "Lower-case, with underscores to separate words. Separate libraries with ::. 
> Parentheses are required after the function name. The keyword function is 
> optional, but must be used consistently throughout a project." "If you're 
> writing a package, separate package names with ::."

> "Lower-case, with underscores to separate words. Separate libraries
with ::. Parentheses are required after the function name. The keyword
function is optional, but must be used consistently throughout a
project." "If you're writing a package, separate package names with ::."

Ugg. Anyone advising people to write bash functions while using the
obsolete keyword 'function' ought to be questioned about their advice in
general.

At any rate, this seems like an inadvertent regression that could be
patched; are you willing to propose such a patch?  The gist of the
matter is that the code base must use the same decision on what forms a
valid function name as it does in deciding what exported non-variable
names in the environment can be reinstated as functions.  I'm fairly
certain that Chet will be reasonable about this, and after the worst
fires are put out, we can revisit this.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature