Martijn Dekker <mart...@inlv.org> wrote:
> Op 01-10-17 om 14:43 schreef Joerg Schilling:
> > The standard does not claim that a function has to be executed the same way
> > as
> > a compound ist would have been executed, or do you see such a claim in the
> > standard?
> >
> > The way I read the standard just mentions that the function body in a
> > function
> > definition is parsed like a compund list.
>
> 2.9.5 Function Definition Command
> [...]
> fname ( ) compound-command [io-redirect ...]
> [...]
> "The argument /compound-command/ represents a compound command, as
> described in Compound Commands."
>
> It "represents" a compound command. This does not mean it is only parsed
> as a compound command; it means it is to be treated as a compound
> command in every way described under "Compound Commands".
Then it is strange, that the deviation from ksh88 is not mentioned in the POSIX
standard.
Maybe, we should add a related bug and enhance the POSIX text.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
