Re: Gettextize: using functions?

[Paul Jarc]

address@hidden (Tim Mooney) wrote:
> 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.

POSIX defines the meaning of the "foo()" syntax, and does not define
the meaning of the "function foo" syntax.  It happens to be the case
that the shells that recognize the "function foo" syntax are the newer
shells - the same ones that also (attempt to) adhere to POSIX.  But
these features are orthogonal; recognition of "function foo" is an
*extension* to POSIX compliance, not a consequence of it.

That's all trivia, though.  The important (and good) fact is that no
one is claiming that "function foo" is recognized by older shells or
that it should be used by autoconf.


paul