Strictly from the syntax, yes, if what is before the lparen is a valid NAME. Practically, I'd expect an 'keyword redefinition attempt' message rather than 'syntax error', because "time()" does meet the requirements of the syntax, but the standard doesn't require this so silently storing the definition, and confusing the user, are more the conforming behavior.
-----Original Message----- From: Joerg Schilling <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> To: shwaresyst <shwares...@aol.com>; kre <k...@munnari.oz.au> Cc: gwc <g...@opengroup.org>; austin-group-l <austin-group-l@opengroup.org> Sent: Tue, Feb 18, 2020 12:08 PM Subject: Re: Re: [1003.1(2004)/Issue 6 0000267]: time (keyword) shwaresyst <shwares...@aol.com> wrote:>> Don't see why, lparen, like "=", is not a char that stops collection of a token body; the function name is extracted, supposedly, when the parser finds the lparen rparen pair; it is used to start a background job only when it is the first character of the token body.Do you expect any function name to be accepted when a function is defined?I am not sure whether this is a good idea, as a function that uses the name of a reserved word will never be executed and this may cause more amazement to the user than an error message that flags the function definition.Jörg-- EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
