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 c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
