Re: currently doable? Indirect notation used w/a hash

[Linda Walsh]

Chris Down wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2013 10:21, "Linda Walsh" <bash@tlinx.org> wrote:
> > > Please, no more brittle export hacks. I'm already crying enough at
> function exports.
> > Brittle would be bad.  Pliant and chewy would be much better, I agree.
> >
> > Perhaps you might explain what you mean by brittle?  Like the export hacks
> > you get in the Antarctic in June?  The word brittle with export doesn't
> > seem to fit very well.  What happened to your functions?  Don't they work?
>
> You are aware of *how* they work, yes? (with apologies for the terse
> replies, I'm on my phone)
====
        They are put in the environment as strings, no?
        That seems fairly sound for most uses.  It's far from bullet proof,
but this is unencrypted SHELL we are talking about, so  for it's use case,
I don't see why it would be such a problem.