> 2011-04-11, 09:51(-04), Chet Ramey:
> >> Machine Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu
> >>
> >> Bash Version: 4.2
> >> Patch Level: 8
> >> Release Status: release
> >>
> >> Description:
> >> man bash is currently lacking information on what is allowed for
> >> function
> >> names. It implies name with name () compound-command [redirection] and
> >> at the start of the manual there is:
> >>
> >> name A word consisting only of alphanumeric characters and
> >> underscores,
> >> and beginning with an alphabetic character or an underscore. Also
> >> referred
> >> to as an identifier.
> >>
> >> In reality the rules for function names are much more loose. For example
> >> hyphen and forward slash are allowed. But there are still some
> >> restrictions:
> >> bash: `aa\'foo': not a valid identifier
> >
> > It was a mistake to allow such characters in function names (`unset' doesn't
> > work to unset them without forcing -f, for instance). We're stuck with them
> > for backwards compatibility, but I don't have to encourage their use.
> [...]
>
> Why would you put any restriction on the allowed name of a function?
(Wow, this message took a long time getting here.)
Because Posix does, and because unset without -f has to enforce the variable
name restrictions. (Though the language has been relaxed in the latest
standard.)
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
