2023年2月5日(日) 2:04 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu>: > > On 2/3/23 11:50 PM, Koichi Murase wrote: > > 2023年2月4日(土) 11:12 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu>: > >>> But a posix conforming shell will still never execute a function that > >>> has a '/' in its name, even if it has extended the character set for > >>> function names, and allows '/' in that set. > >> > >> Yep. I'll probably change that. > > > > I disagree with making the change to disallow the execution of > > functions with a slash in their names. > > We're only talking about posix mode here. Bash default mode will behave > as it has in the past.
Thank you for the clarification. > > Is Bash required to strictly follow the POSIX > > standard even for non-POSIX shell scripts that use Bash extensions? > > The standard doesn't have a provision for extensions there: shell functions > are only executed if the name does not contain a slash. I thought the shell functions with their names containing a slash may be considered extensions, for which the standard might be modified to make it explicit that they don't have a provision. > > Is it impossible that this is > > explicitly marked as `unspecified' in the standard? > > It's not marked as unspecified. Sorry, it was my grammatical misuse of the present tense. I intended the future tense: I wanted to ask ``Would it be impossible that the standard would be revised to explicitly mark it `unspecified'?'' -- Koichi
