2023年1月5日(木) 2:56 Emanuele Torre :
> [...]
>
> It seems that, if an operand of unset is in the form of
> validvariablename[something], the unset builtin invoked without options,
> will only attempt to delete an array element specified by that argument,
> and will not fall back to removing a functio
2023年2月3日(金) 5:37 Greg Wooledge :
> There's a legitimate reason to support function names that contain *some*
> punctuation characters beyond underscore. Hyphens, periods, colons (single
> or double) -- all fine. Some people like namespace::function names, and
> bash should continue to allow thos
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 06:38:36AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> which is harmless, unless the shell is badly breaking the command
> execution rules of POSIX (zsh does I believe) but because for any
> shell that follows those rules, it is impossible to invoke a function
> with a '/' in its name.
unic
Date:Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:36:30 -0500
From:Greg Wooledge
Message-ID:
| There's a legitimate reason to support function names that contain *some*
| punctuation characters beyond underscore.
There is a very good reason to allow function names to contain almost
any c
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -flto=auto
-ffat-lto-objects -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
-Werror=format-security -Wall
uname output: Linux apollo 5.15.0-58-g
On 1/28/23 5:56 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
Firstly, let's just leave aside "POSIX requires this" for a bit. I know
that the requirement is there, and I think it is one of those broken things
that ought to have been dropped from POSIX, or at least reduced to optional
rather than required.
Be
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 03:02:41PM -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Greg Wooledge writes:
> > I'd be totally OK with restricting the function namespace a bit more.
> > Function names should not be allowed to contain backticks or less-than
> > or greater-than signs (in my opinion). I'm still undecid
Greg Wooledge writes:
> I'd be totally OK with restricting the function namespace a bit more.
> Function names should not be allowed to contain backticks or less-than
> or greater-than signs (in my opinion). I'm still undecided about
> parentheses, but I'm leaning toward "denied".
I'd be perfect
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 04:47:34PM +1000, Martin D Kealey wrote:
> > ...in posix mode, fname must be a valid shell name and may not be the name
> > of one of the POSIX special builtins.
> > In default mode, a function name can be any unquoted shell word that does
> > not contain $. ...
>
> I'm gu
