2017-03-20 14:47:17 -0400, Chet Ramey:
> 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.

See also:

$ bash -c 'f() { unset a; echo "$a";}; a=1; a=2 f'

already mentioned.

In any case, those are corner cases I'm not too worried about.
I'm more concerned about "unset var" not unsetting var in real
life cases when "local"/"typeset" is being used (regardless of

The other POSIX related concern I was also mentioning is the
fact that the work around implies using non-POSIX constructs,
the fact that libraries of POSIX functions can't be used in

The particular case that affects me directly, is that
recommendations I'm giving online about POSIX compatible
constructs such as:

(unset IFS; set -f; cmd -- $var)

Which is (or at least I though should be) *the* Bourne idiom to
split, already mentioned several times are *wrong* for bash (or
mksh or yash) in the general case, as "unset" doesn't do what it
says on the can there.

Another case of "principle of least astonishment" not being
followed IMO.


Reply via email to