I see oft repeated that shells presently use the keyword `local` with varying semantics, as if anyone needed to be constantly reminded of this trivial fact.
So what? That is not a blocker. Arrive at a consensus on a useful lowest common denominator set of semantics for function scoped variables, and select a different keyword than `local`. I propose `let`. Cheers, Andrew [email protected] On Thursday, October 31st, 2024 at 11:58 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2024-11-01 at 04:01 +0000, Andrew via austin-group-l at The > Open Group wrote: > > > What's the progress looking like for support of local, function > > scoped variables in POSIX sh? > > > There used to be a request[0] which as however rejected. > > Given that different shells already implement `local` with different > semantics, it seems unlikely this will ever get resolved (as that might > break tons of code). > > > Maybe the best chance would be if another special built-in / attribute > would be implemented by shells, where all agree in advance on the exact > semantics (while keeping their own `local`), but even that seems rather > unlikely to me. > > > Are subshells an effective workaround meanwhile? > > > Depends probably on what one wants to do, but you couldn't change > "global" variables from such functions (not outside the subshell)... > and it's probably not very efficient (if that matters). > > > Cheers, > Chris. > > > [0] https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767
