Hi all,
Since I didn't get any replies to earlier message, can anybody
please clarify me whether that was due to:
1. Poor documentation(feature description)
2. Unnecessary feature
3. Already implemented feature (it wasn't present in bash 4.2 by the
time first mail was written)
Any rep
2011-05-24 17:23:20 -0400, Chet Ramey:
[...]
> > Why would you put any restriction on the allowed name of a function?
[...]
> Because Posix does, and because unset without -f has to enforce the variable
> name restrictions. (Though the language has been relaxed in the latest
> standard.)
[...]
PO
> Hi all,
> Since I didn't get any replies to earlier message, can anybody
> please clarify me whether that was due to:
Speaking for myself, I have not looked at it yet due to a lack of time.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars lo
> 2011-05-24 17:23:20 -0400, Chet Ramey:
> [...]
> > > Why would you put any restriction on the allowed name of a function?
> [...]
> > Because Posix does, and because unset without -f has to enforce the variable
> > name restrictions. (Though the language has been relaxed in the latest
> > standa
I picked up a cool routine called upvars from this location:
http://fvue.nl/wiki/Bash:_Passing_variables_by_reference
I've been using it a lot, but I just ran into a debugging nightmare that I do
not understand. I'm using the upvars function described in the link above. In
addition, I wrote (w
