Paul Jarc wrote:
>> | The function is named fname; the application shall ensure that it is a
>> | name (see the Base Definitions volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section
>> | 3.230, Name).
>
> "The application" is the script, not the shell, so this is consistent
> with Stephane's statement.
Ok, g
Jan Schampera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>> Note that bash didn't have to. POSIX allows a shell to accept
>> any character in a function name, but it says one shouldn't use
>> those in a POSIX script, which is different.
>
> I'm not a POSIX expert, and this is the SUS, bu
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> Note that bash didn't have to. POSIX allows a shell to accept
> any character in a function name, but it says one shouldn't use
> those in a POSIX script, which is different.
I'm not a POSIX expert, and this is the SUS, but I read:
| The format of a function definitio
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 05:50:59PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> Poor Yorick wrote:
>> ksh refuses to define functions which contain a dash ("-") in the name.
>> The
>> Bash manual also defines 'name' as consisting solely of letters, numbers,
>> and
>> underscores. So shouldn't bash refuse to crea
Poor Yorick wrote:
ksh refuses to define functions which contain a dash ("-") in the name. The
Bash manual also defines 'name' as consisting solely of letters, numbers, and
underscores. So shouldn't bash refuse to create functions which contain a dash
in the name?
When in posix mode, bash doe
