On Sat, Nov 2, 2024, at 1:55 AM, Andrew via austin-group-l at The Open Group 
wrote:
> 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`.

Shell implementers are free to collaborate on this if they wish,
but it is not the role of this standard to invent new functionality
and attempt to impose it on implementations.

> I propose `let`.

Several shells already have a "let" command and have for decades.
It does something else (shell arithmetic).

-- 
vq

  • status of lo... Andrew via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: sta... Lawrence Velázquez via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: sta... Christoph Anton Mitterer via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re:... Andrew via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • ... Lawrence Velázquez via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • ... Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group
          • ... Andrew via austin-group-l at The Open Group
          • ... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
            • ... Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group
              • ... Christoph Anton Mitterer via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
              • ... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to