On Monday, July 15, 2024 12:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: ><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. That is that I am also suggesting but did not say it as precisely. Thanks.
