Re: Gettextize: using functions?

[Andreas Schwab]

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."