-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/10/2010 2:27 PM, David Korn wrote:
> Subject: Re: Re: [ast-users] Is this a bug? --------
>
>> I can understand making new behavior for the new 'function name'
>> mechanism, and even discouraging the use of the old method, but
>> why go out of the way to make the behavior of typeset
>> incompatibly different in the old style 'name()'?
>>
>>
>
> Primarily because POSIX didn't add local variables and I was
> concerned that any extension that was done to POSIX would be
> incompatible.
>
> For example, posix functions does not save and restore trap
> settings so if I kept this ability, I would be incompatible.
> Therefore, I decided to do functions correction with function
> name() and wait until posix acts before I change name().
>
Yeah as soon as you said 'POSIX' in your last email I figured that was
the answer to that question. I don't know why that didn't occur to me
earlier.
One more question -
are () legal (but optional?) on the function name with 'function name'?
IOW are these the same:
function foo
{
true
}
function foo()
{
true
}
I prefer the look of the latter, but what is more portable?
Thanks again,
-Kyle
> David Korn [email protected]
> _______________________________________________ ast-users mailing
> list [email protected]
> https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2vNLAAoJEEADRM+bKN5wngcH/3/0X8dtppdVro4PZsqdq7Ro
0Jzr9WHzoTxzLfl+BJr7/cSUXmCs3EwNqmbqq4MxHV2HKxaKZDm8IxxMusqKXS7A
sb1RC5XgdePyHcnQ/H7SrIa+IG2hDH1zXX85hopVsN23qhywlNiC0HRUitsQ+Iih
KXUXfpp+nIq/rknGFLdcBhG7mkD/F2mCQlDcTDlzMbLT+HOEMMQ1qKOy/Vare2ro
0qsCOuZtooCp4rsYC9I2zEhYs0kpA7WXWzKv3SpdcgNsRAU2VQxiAvkoA+OLAr5y
UvzBd4wexeQ95xWBsX6BI5sYRS5e0mr0wUVegDhHOPw7W0EQAtD+mnvmTtsENYc=
=jB5x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
ast-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
