[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Gettextize: using functions?
From: |
Andreas Schwab |
Subject: |
Re: Gettextize: using functions? |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:15:16 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090005 (Oort Gnus v0.05) Emacs/21.2.50 (ia64-suse-linux) |
address@hidden (Tim Mooney) writes:
|> In article <address@hidden>,
|> Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
|> > > From: Bruno Haible <address@hidden>
|> > > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:35:47 +0200 (CEST)
|> > >
|> > > Yes, the last time I saw such a /bin/sh was on DEC Ultrix in 1995.
|> > > Let Ultrix rest in peace.
|> >
|> > Even on such a beast, the latest Autoconf should switch to /bin/sh5,
|> > which should have shell functions. This is to handle LINENO. If it
|> > doesn't switch, we should be able to arrange for it to switch.
|> >
|> > All in all I think the next major Autoconf release can start to assume
|> > shell functions.
|>
|> Akim's original comment was with regard to just gettextize, though, wasn't
it?
|>
|> In any case, if autoconf (or the GNU coding standards) is going to relax its
|> stance on shell functions, I would suggest that the documentation be very
|> explicit about using the older function style
|>
|> foo() {
|> }
|>
|> vs. the newer style supported by Korn/Bash/POSIX shells,
|>
|> function foo {
|> }
It's the other way round: POSIX uses the 'foo ()' syntax, and 'function
foo' has unspecified effect.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, address@hidden
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."