Re: Bourne shell differences w.r.t functions?

Article View: comp.unix.shell

Article #1163

#1163

From: Bruce Balden
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 1990 17:15

20 lines
997 bytes

In article <3693@segue.segue.com> bruce@segue.segue.com (Bruce Adler) writes:
>
>I don't think this is precisely correct.  Perhaps you meant that only 
>real recursive functions (i.e. a function that invokes itself).
>
Local variables being preserved (and lost) would also defeat the
main purpose of functions and deny them any mechanism to
return more than one result value.









Bruce Balden
balden@wimsey.bc.ca
:

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1955@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!balden

References: <1990Sep13.163836.19937@cs.umn.edu> <1990Sep13.221943.15220@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <3693@segue.segue.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!balden
From: balden@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Bruce Balden)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Bourne shell differences w.r.t functions?
Keywords: Bourne shell, /bin/sh, functions, ksh, bash, argument list, POSIX
Message-ID: <1955@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 15 Sep 90 17:15:52 GMT
References: <1990Sep13.163836.19937@cs.umn.edu> <1990Sep13.221943.15220@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <3693@segue.segue.com>
Reply-To: balden@van-bc.UUCP (Bruce Balden)
Organization: USENET Public Access, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 20

Reply to Parent Message