Re: ${LINENO} implementation change for /bin/sh

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 03:12:15PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <25442.1494227472%andromeda.noi.kre.to@localhost>,
> Robert Elz  <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:
> >In this message ...
> [...]
> >
> >This one I think (though I have not tried it) is implementable, though
> >with more work than the option version, but to me appears a little cleaner
> >and removes both of the questions above - no new option means no need
> >to invent a name for it, and no need to consider its default value.
> >It would mean that the bash, ksh93, /bin/ksh, ... interpretation of how
> >LINENO works in functions embedded in scripts would be adopted by
> >default though.
> >
> >So, what does everyone think about that way?
> 
> meaning that $LINENO is always the physical line number of the script
> regardless if we are in a function or not (which is I guess what ksh/bash do)?

What happens if I pull in a shell function library with "."?  Do I get line
numbers per-file, or does the inclusion cause line numbers to appear to jump
_within_ the file that included, or...?

-- 
  Thor Lancelot Simon	                                     tls%panix.com@localhost

  "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
   aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others."      - H.L.A. Hart