Re: IGNOREEOF and POSIXLY_CORRECT don't ignore invisible vars

[Linda Walsh]

Grisha Levit wrote:
> The manual references these values being set, not just declared, so 
> maybe should check for invisible_p?
---
Why?  I.e. what were you wanting to happen?
> Noticeable for example because this works:
>
> $ set +o posix; f() { local POSIXLY_CORRECT=; shopt -p -o posix; }; f; 
> shopt -p -o posix
> set -o posix
> set +o posix
---
Yeah, you've set P_C to a null string.
> But the opposite does not:
>
> $ set -o posix; f() { local POSIXLY_CORRECT; shopt -p -o posix; }; f; 
> shopt -p -o posix
> set -o posix
> set -o posix
---
The "opposite"?  You aren't really showing the opposite.  I.e.
wouldn't the opposite be (alias used for printing P_C & output of shopt)

>  alias shopos='printf "PC=%s; " $(if [[ -v POSIXLY_CORRECT ]]; then 
printf "  set"; else printf "unset"; fi) ;shopt -p -o posix'

>  set -o posix; f() { local POSIXLY_CORRECT; unset POSIXLY_CORRECT; 
printf "   in f: "; shopos; }; printf "bfore f: "; shopos; f ; printf 
"after f: "; shopos
bfore f: PC=set; set -o posix
  in f: PC=unset; set -o posix
after f: PC=set; set -o posix

(and your first example:)

>  set +o posix; f() { local POSIXLY_CORRECT=;  printf "   in f: "; 
shopos; }; printf "bfore f: "; shopos; f ; printf "after f: "; shopos
bfore f: PC=unset; set +o posix
  in f: PC=set; set -o posix
after f: PC=unset; set +o posix