<rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > What is strange is that when running on NonStop using ksh, t0000.1 has never > failed. I think the situation is subtly different from what we are solving. > My take is that there is a difference in the local vs. non-local variable > set semantic, rather than just accepting the keyword. I would propose that > we need a more comprehensive local test to verify the actual expected > semantics rather than just testing the syntax. It is possible that I may be misreading that first test, but as far as I can tell, it is testing not just the syntax but tests how the variables declared "local" behaves and should notice if they are not localized. It checks that "local" assignments in try_local_xy does take effect, and (more importantly) after try_local_xy returns, the original values are restored. As I speculated earlier in an earlier message, the breakage you reported may have to do with interaction between "local" and use of a subshell, and perhaps we can also check that pattern in the test. Thanks.
