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

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

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)?

christos