NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/unix/shell/5097

Text File | 1992-12-16 | 1.6 KB | 32 lines

Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!uchinews!machine!ddsw1!dattier
From: [e-mail] (DWT)
Subject: ksh autoload quirk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:01:49 GMT
Organization: Contributor Account at ddsw1, Chicago, Illinois  60657
Lines: 22

ksh 11/16/88d under Dell SVR4 4.0 here on ddsw1 and the ksh running on a 3B2
on gagme recognize any filename in a directory in $FPATH as an undefined
function whether or not that name has been declared for autoload with
"autoload" or "typeset -fu."

But there is a difference when a file in $FPATH has the same name as an
executable file in $PATH.  If the undefined function has been formally
declared with "autoload" or "typeset -fu," then ksh interprets an appearance
of that name on the command line as a reference to the function.  If the
undefined function has not been declared but is recognized as such solely by
dint of lying in $FPATH, then an appearance of the name on the command line
is taken by ksh parser to mean the executable in $PATH (unless the function
has actually been loaded with the . command or by a call to another function
in the same file to whose name the file is linked).

Is that the correct behavior?  Is a file name in $FPATH that hasn't been
declared for autoload supposed to be recognizable at all as an undefined
function?  I haven't seen anything about that (nor about a difference in
precedence from a declared undefined function) in the ferkakte manual.

David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
[e-mail]    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818