Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: Minor bug(s) with NO_MULTI_FUNC_DEF
- X-seq: zsh-workers 50313
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Cc: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Minor bug(s) with NO_MULTI_FUNC_DEF
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 10:07:30 -0700
- Archived-at: <https://zsh.org/workers/50313>
- In-reply-to: <1980097513.514587.1653987797049@mail2.virginmedia.com>
- List-id: <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- References: <CAH+w=7Y7Q8H9YVEjNd8gsE=5LzpRo74DvVAeK9ORguuuhr00kg@mail.gmail.com> <1980097513.514587.1653987797049@mail2.virginmedia.com>
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:06 AM Peter Stephenson
<p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So the question is, is it time to output all functions (except anonymous)
> using the other syntax, which is the one we recommend anyway?
In the case of multiple names, definitely. In the case of a single name ...
> I don't see a good argument for
> doing it differently depending on the option setting.
... do we need to worry about sh / POSIX compatibility?
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author