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

[Koichi Murase]

2023年2月5日(日) 2:04 Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>:
>
> 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.

Thank you for the clarification.

> > 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.

I thought the shell functions with their names containing a slash may
be considered extensions, for which the standard might be modified to
make it explicit that they don't have a provision.

> > Is it impossible that this is
> > explicitly marked as `unspecified' in the standard?
>
> It's not marked as unspecified.

Sorry, it was my grammatical misuse of the present tense. I intended
the future tense: I wanted to ask ``Would it be impossible that the
standard would be revised to explicitly mark it `unspecified'?''

--
Koichi