Re: unset does not remove functions like a[b] unless -f is specified

[Chet Ramey]

On 2/3/23 11:50 PM, Koichi Murase wrote:
> 2023年2月4日(土) 11:12 Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>:
> > > But a posix conforming shell will still never execute a function that
> > > has a '/' in its name, even if it has extended the character set for
> > > function names, and allows '/' in that set.
> >
> > Yep. I'll probably change that.
>
> I disagree with making the change to disallow the execution of
> functions with a slash in their names.

We're only talking about posix mode here. Bash default mode will behave
as it has in the past.

> Is Bash required to strictly follow the POSIX
> standard even for non-POSIX shell scripts that use Bash extensions?

The standard doesn't have a provision for extensions there: shell functions
are only executed if the name does not contain a slash.


> Is it impossible that this is
> explicitly marked as `unspecified' in the standard?

It's not marked as unspecified.

--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/