On 11/8/18 10:28 AM, Great Big Dot wrote:
>> It should expand to the empty string in all these cases.
>
> Oh yeah, right, because a function isn't even running. Duh. All my comments
> about expected behavior should be inverted, then, I guess. Out of
> curiosity, do you have any idea what's causing bash to *sometimes*
> correctly conclude that FUNCNAME[0] is empty and other times that
> FUNCNAME[*] is empty, under seemingly arbitrary circumstances? I can't
> figure out what could be causing that.
Yes. The internal function that returns an array value isn't honoring the
`not visible' setting. That's where the change needs to be.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU [email protected] http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
