> 2011-05-24 17:23:20 -0400, Chet Ramey:
> [...]
> > > Why would you put any restriction on the allowed name of a function?
> [...]
> > 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.)
> [...]
>
> POSIX puts restrictions on the name of functions used by
> applications, but I can't see anywhere it restricting what the
> shell allows.
The `application shall ensure ...' language was added long after the first
version of the standard was released. The original version from 1992
required that a function name be a `name' as the grammar defined it.
I don't know whether that was changed in the 2001 version of the standard,
but it was different by 2004, at least.
> Note that all of pdksh, mksh, zsh (at least) allow
> foo+bar() { w; } for instance
> ksh93 allows foo.get() { w; }
Bash allows all of these forms, as well as things like `!!', by default.
It continues to enforce the original Posix restrictions in Posix mode.
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/
