Re: Gettextize: using functions?

[Tim Mooney]

In article <address@hidden>,
Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> wrote:
> address@hidden (Tim Mooney) writes:
> 
> |> 
> |> 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.

I'm not sure I understand.

More-or-less traditional Bourne shells *don't* grok

        #! /bin/sh

        function foo {
                echo "hi"
        }

        foo

Examples of shells that choke on this: /bin/sh on Tru64 or Solaris.
However, if you take the file and use the POSIX interpreter on either of
those platforms (/usr/bin/posix/sh on Tru64, /usr/xpg4/bin/sh on Solaris),
it works fine.

If you instead do

        #! /bin/sh

        foo() {
                echo "hi"
        }

        foo

then that will work with both older Bourne shells (like /bin/sh on Solaris
or Tru64) and newer shells like the POSIX shell, Korn shell, bash, etc.
In other words, the only shells I can find that *do* grok `function foo'
are the ones that claim to be closer to POSIX than traditional Bourne.

Using the foo() { ... } style functions is what I'm advocating should be
strongly recommended in the documentation, if functions are no longer
anathema.

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                              address@hidden
Information Technology Services         (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building              (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164