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

[Chet Ramey]

On 2/4/23 12:14 PM, Koichi Murase wrote:

> > > 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.

The standard doesn't specifically speak to implementations allowing shell
functions with slashes in their names: they are permitted if the
implementation wants to. I assume you're referring to the command search
and execution rules.

> > > 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'?''

I would be interested in the outcome of a discussion like this on the
austin-group-l mailing list. I very much doubt this would happen, but
anything's possible.

--
``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/