[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug: illegal function name?
From: |
Chet Ramey |
Subject: |
Re: bug: illegal function name? |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 15:56:47 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 |
On 1/20/19 1:22 PM, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> The manual could of course mention something about the accepted function
> names, e.g. "Function names can contain the characters [...], except in
> POSIX mode, where they must be valid shell /names/." I'm not exactly sure
> what the accepted characters are, though, so I can't really suggest
> anything concrete.
The default mode accepts just about anything except NUL, so it's better to
mention the restrictions that accompany posix mode.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU chet@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
- bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Ilkka Virta, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?,
Chet Ramey <=
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Eduardo A . Bustamante López, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Eduardo Bustamante, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Eduardo Bustamante, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Chet Ramey, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Andrey Butirsky, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Robert Elz, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, Eduardo A . Bustamante López, 2019/01/20
- Re: bug: illegal function name?, pepa65, 2019/01/21