[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Document what's allowed in function names

From: Linda Walsh
Subject: Re: Document what's allowed in function names
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:41:14 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Chet Ramey wrote:
It was a mistake to allow such characters in function names (`unset' doesn't
work to unset them without forcing -f, for instance).  We're stuck with them
for backwards compatibility, but I don't have to encourage their use.

Why doesn't bash create some sort of "deprecated' logic like the kernel
or perl use  features that shouldn't be used and are scheduled for deletion?

Then after a well-defined period (N Versions), make the change?

It allows bash to move forward without carrying an increasingly larger baggage load into the future.

An example of something that didn't do this for a long time:  Windows.

Then, even MS, realized it couldn't move forward without breaking compat. They took alot of heat from this decision -- but much of that was because of what replaced it (a stripped down feature set that was considerably slower)
and *why* it was done (to implement DRM).

If it had been a +++ move (more features, faster more reliable), I'm sure
it wouldn't have gotten the heat it did  and might not have required
rebranding to Win7.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]