In article <[email protected]>, Robert Elz <[email protected]> wrote: >In this message ... [...] > >This one I think (though I have not tried it) is implementable, though >with more work than the option version, but to me appears a little cleaner >and removes both of the questions above - no new option means no need >to invent a name for it, and no need to consider its default value. >It would mean that the bash, ksh93, /bin/ksh, ... interpretation of how >LINENO works in functions embedded in scripts would be adopted by >default though. > >So, what does everyone think about that way?
meaning that $LINENO is always the physical line number of the script regardless if we are in a function or not (which is I guess what ksh/bash do)? christos
