Re: Minor bug(s) with NO_MULTI_FUNC_DEF

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 31 May 2022 at 18:14 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:07 AM Bart Schaefer
> <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:06 AM Peter Stephenson
> > <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I don't see a good argument for
> > > doing it differently depending on the option setting.
> >
> > ... do we need to worry about sh / POSIX compatibility?
> 
> To be more precise ... we still don't need to do it differently based
> on the option, but we might need to retain the "name()" format when
> it's not affected by the option.

Hmm, this is a real issue.  As NO_MULTI_FUNC_DEF is in effect
for sh emulation, we could in fact tie it to the option.  But your
suggestion has a much lower effect on output of compiled shell code, so that
could be the way to go.

pws