Re: Officially document that we allow other characters in function names

[konsolebox]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> On 6/27/16 1:15 PM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:17 PM, konsolebox <konsolebox@gmail.com
>> <mailto:konsolebox@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu
>>     <mailto:chet.ramey@case.edu>> wrote:
>>     > On 6/27/16 3:11 AM, konsolebox wrote:
>>     >> Hi, I think it's time that we officially specify in the manual of Bash
>>     >> that we allow other characters besides [[:alnum:]_] when declaring
>>     >> function names in non-POSIX mode.
>>     >
>>     > Is there some new reason to do this now?
>>     >
>>
>>     Not really, but sometimes I encounter people saying such practice of
>>     using characters besides those allowed by POSIX is wrong simply
>>     because it is undocumented.  I just thought about making a suggestion
>>     today, and hope that it gets updated before 4.4.
>>
>>     --
>>     konsolebox
>>
>> Chet is one of these people ;)
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2011-04/msg00040.html
>
> Not wrong because it's undocumented.  At the time, I said it was a bad idea
> because it didn't integrate well with other parts of the shell (like unset)
> that require valid identifiers as arguments.

Some shells like ksh93, pdksh and mksh require -f to unset a function,
so it's not that bad for me.

> I'm not going to remove the
> feature.

That's reassuring at least, thanks.

-- 
konsolebox