Re: Valid characters for function names

[Reuti]

Thx for all the replies and links.

Nevertheless I wonder about the central place to read about the differences 
between being POSIX compliant or allowing extensions for this particular issue. 
As I noted in my original email from `man bash`:

a)
      name   A word consisting only of alphanumeric characters and underscores, 
and beginning with an alphabetic  character  or
             an underscore.  Also referred to as an identifier.

b)
      name () compound-command [redirection]
      function name [()] compound-command [redirection]

There is no hint that Bash extends the valid character set to a broader range. 
There is only a note about POSIX mode limiting the to be used names not to be 
one of POSIX special builtins. In b) maybe "fname" should be used with a proper 
definition of "fname" beforehand. Then it could be phrased: 'In POSIX mode 
"fname" is limited to represent a "name".'

-- Reuti


> Am 25.11.2019 um 20:27 schrieb Chet Ramey <address@hidden>:
> 
> On 11/25/19 12:02 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> On 11/25/19 9:41 AM, Reuti wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I got a script using foo++() as function name, and at first I was
>>> confused of a different behavior between bash 4.2, 4.4 and 5.0. After
>>> crawling some mailing lists whether this is allowed at all [...]
>> You can do some fun stuff with function names, which seems fair since
>> you can also do fun stuff with disk filenames in /usr/bin
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2019-01/msg00171.html
> 
> -- 
> ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
>                ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
> Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    address@hidden    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
>