Hello,
As the interface is not specified, would it make sense to:
* add a prefix (use BASH_FUNCTION_foo instead of foo for exported
function foo);
* still expand the variable if it matches the 'exported function'
pattern.
The first point would reduce the probability of a clash with
a
Hello,
As the interface is not specified, would it make sense to:
* add a prefix (use BASH_FUNCTION_foo instead of foo for exported
function foo);
* still expand the variable if it matches the 'exported function'
pattern.
The first point would reduce the probability of a clash with
a
I'd much rather prefer the use of an invalid shell name (such as
f()=...) than a valid shell name (BASH_FUNCTION_foo=()...).
Using a BASH_ prefix has some advantages:
* Anyone setting such a variable, might expect it could change the
behaviour of bash. Any script allowing setting untrusted
It's not backwards compatible, but who cares? The only time it
matters is if you are mixing old and new bash ON THE SAME SYSTEM,
and TRYING TO EXPORT FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THEM.
It might happen during the update of bash. A bash process exec()ed
before the update would fail to export a function to
