Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 6/27/16 1:56 PM, konsolebox wrote: > >>> Chet is one of these people ;) >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2011-04/msg00040.html >> >> Well it wasn't a mistake for me. At least I find the characters '.' >> and '?' (and maybe '!

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 6/27/16 1:15 PM, Pierre Gaston wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox > > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey > > wrote: >> > On 6

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On 6/27/16 1:15 PM, Pierre Gaston wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey > wrote: > > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote: > >> Hi, I think it's

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On 6/27/16 1:56 PM, konsolebox wrote: >> Chet is one of these people ;) >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2011-04/msg00040.html > > Well it wasn't a mistake for me. At least I find the characters '.' > and '?' (and maybe '!' as well) helpful. You just have to be careful that `?' d

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Pierre Gaston > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: >>> > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote: >>> >> Hi, I

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: >> > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote: >> >> Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash >> >> t

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Pierre Gaston wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: >> > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote: >> >> Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash >> >> t

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: > > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote: > >> Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash > >> that we allow other characters besides [[:alnum:]_] when declaring >

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote: >> Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash >> that we allow other characters besides [[:alnum:]_] when declaring >> function names in non-POSIX mode. > > Is there some new rea

Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote: > Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash > that we allow other characters besides [[:alnum:]_] when declaring > function names in non-POSIX mode. Is there some new reason to do this now? -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so lon

Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash that we allow other characters besides [[:alnum:]_] when declaring function names in non-POSIX mode. In the Bash manual, the only thing we specify about the definition of shell functions under POSIX mode is "When in posix mode,