Re: bug: illegal function name?

[pepa65]

On 20/1/2019 19:50, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> Changing the behavior of `unset f' to only ever unset variables means
> potentially breaking existing scripts. Is the inconsistency reported severe
> enough to make this change?

The alternative would be to allow anything (that is not a proper
variable name) after unset, and if it can't be a variable name, only the
functions need to be checked and unset if they exist.

Peter