On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:24:34PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 3/19/24 11:50 AM, Mike Jonkmans wrote: > > > > Yes. There is one thing missing: the transformation should expand to a > > > `declare' command when applied to a local variable at the current scope, > > > even if there are no attributes to be displayed. Agreed? > > > > > > I am less convinced about outputting a `-g' for a global variable when > > > called from a function scope, but I could be persuaded. > > > > This would be logical. > > Forgot the use case, but it was about a year ago that I needed this. > > The former, the latter, or both?
I can also agree to the former. My use case was with needing the '-g'. -- Regards, Mike Jonkmans
