Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall
From: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
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: <9493@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 13 Sep 90 17:31:16 GMT
References: <1990Sep13.163836.19937@cs.umn.edu>
Reply-To: lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 10

In article <1990Sep13.163836.19937@cs.umn.edu> rantapaa@cs.umn.edu (Erik E. Rantapaa) writes:
: For maximum portability, should I just avoid using functions
: altogether? :(

In a word, yes.  I have never written a shell function.  Not because I
wouldn't have liked to upon occasion.  But some of us live in multi-vendor
environments, where portability is a way of life.  Configure scripts can't
afford to use shell functions either.  That's life.

Larry