Re: [Help-bash] make function local

[Linda Walsh]

Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:38:22PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> [...]
> > AFAIK, _exec_gvim, can only be called from within "function gvim", no?
>
> No. Doing this:
>
> outerfunc() {
>  func() { ...; }
>  func args
>  unset -f func
> }
> outerfunc
>
> Doesn't guarantee that `func' will be only called from outerfunc. If you have
> traps defined they can switch to other contexts where that funtion will be
> available.
>
> It's sad. Why do people keep pretending bash is something it isn't :-)?
It's sad, when you have to work at breaking people's example.

The program doesn't use traps.

Primarily, I didn't want to leave '_exec_vim' left in the namespace
after it had run.  It accomplishes that.

You can try hard enough to break anything.  Java was designed to
be a secure computing language from the start, yet it's track
record in security doesn't set it apart from any other language.

If you can't start with a 'fresh' language to design something
secure, how can you expect to add duct-tape and bailing wire to
30-40 year-old technology to make it secure.

Most security experts have advanced beyond the stage of the
"silver bullet", and have finally come into agreement with where
I was, at least, 15 years ago -- security in layers.  None of the
layers are secure, but by the time a cracker finishes peeling off
the layers of the onion, they'll be in tears.