On 11/8/18 10:28 AM, Great Big Dot wrote: >> It should expand to the empty string in all these cases. > > Oh yeah, right, because a function isn't even running. Duh. All my comments > about expected behavior should be inverted, then, I guess. Out of > curiosity, do you have any idea what's causing bash to *sometimes* > correctly conclude that FUNCNAME[0] is empty and other times that > FUNCNAME[*] is empty, under seemingly arbitrary circumstances? I can't > figure out what could be causing that.
Yes. The internal function that returns an array value isn't honoring the `not visible' setting. That's where the change needs to be. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/