On 1/20/19 10:56 PM, pepa65 wrote:
> On 20/1/2019 19:50, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
>> Changing the behavior of `unset f' to only ever unset variables means
>> potentially breaking existing scripts. Is the inconsistency reported severe
>> enough to make this change?
>
> The alternative would be to allow anything (that is not a proper
> variable name) after unset, and if it can't be a variable name, only the
> functions need to be checked and unset if they exist.
This is reasonable to look at for a future version.
Chet
--
``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/
