On 3/20/17 2:30 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/17/2017 07:21 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>>> The problem is the non-obvious nature of unset's interaction with scope,
>> the main problem to me is an unset command that doesn't unset.
>> As shown in my original post, there's also a POSIX conformance
>> issue.
> As POSIX has not yet specified 'local', any use of 'local' already
> renders the script non-conformant, so it shouldn't matter what bash does
> in that situation (although if POSIX is ever going to standardize
> 'local', it requires some concerted effort to make all shells with
> 'local' to settle on a lowest common denominator).

I believe he means the behavior of `a=0; a=1 eval unset a', which Posix
implicitly requires affect the global scope and results in a being unset
when the statement completes.

``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    c...@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to