Should we use UTF-8 characters like ⏰ in bash/shell script?












33














The simple code here is working as expected on my machine if launched with bash :



function ⏰(){
date
}



Could there be a problem for other people using this, or is it universal ?



I'm wondering because I've never seen anything like this in other source code for now.



Edit : There are unlimited possibilities, it can be used to quickly distinguish a function role with the usage of an emoji for example.



A 💣 for something that can modify or remove files, a 🔧 if it's a work in progress, 📃 for an interactive menu...



I guess we should create a standard for all of that, but it seems to be an interesting idea.

Maybe a random line of ~5 characters can help us a lot understanding what the code is doing. (Of course we need to learn how to read them.)



More edit : I'm giving it a shot. For now, if i fold all my functions in my editor (Or cat myscript.sh|grep function) they look like this. (My unicode looks much better in geany or my terminal compared to here.)



function ⬚_1(){
function ⬚⬚_2(){
function ⬚⬚⬚_📃_D(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_X(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Y(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_P(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Z(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_U(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_O(){


I use a strange indentation ⬚ to show how the functions are related to each other and a symbol 📃/❓ to clearly distinguish their role. (Of course these are not my real function names, I just put a random letter at the end, but even without them we can clearly see the relationships.)










share|improve this question




















  • 8




    I'd say it unsafe for retrocompatible reason, if you have to use your script on old server this could not work as bash emoji support is recent. but it's probably OK on recent Linux.
    – Kiwy
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:58






  • 17




    @Ipor no, it stands for Unicode (and the “Uni” in Unicode stands for universal).
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:59






  • 5




    How "universal" do you want universal to be? Works on Cygwin, with the usual UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 problems? On modern IBM z/OS system services, which still have to deal with the EBCDIC charset? On historical Unix computers which don't use 8-bit bytes as smallest unit? The POSIX restriction is there for a reason...
    – dirkt
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:11








  • 6




    The names of functions must be made up of characters from the portable character set, according to POSIX. If "universal" means "any shell", then it would not be universal in this sense.
    – Kusalananda
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:18






  • 6




    If you find yourself asking whether it is safe to do <whatever> in a shell script, the answer is most probably no. Heck, not even doing echo $foo is safe.
    – Matteo Italia
    Nov 27 '18 at 16:49


















33














The simple code here is working as expected on my machine if launched with bash :



function ⏰(){
date
}



Could there be a problem for other people using this, or is it universal ?



I'm wondering because I've never seen anything like this in other source code for now.



Edit : There are unlimited possibilities, it can be used to quickly distinguish a function role with the usage of an emoji for example.



A 💣 for something that can modify or remove files, a 🔧 if it's a work in progress, 📃 for an interactive menu...



I guess we should create a standard for all of that, but it seems to be an interesting idea.

Maybe a random line of ~5 characters can help us a lot understanding what the code is doing. (Of course we need to learn how to read them.)



More edit : I'm giving it a shot. For now, if i fold all my functions in my editor (Or cat myscript.sh|grep function) they look like this. (My unicode looks much better in geany or my terminal compared to here.)



function ⬚_1(){
function ⬚⬚_2(){
function ⬚⬚⬚_📃_D(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_X(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Y(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_P(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Z(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_U(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_O(){


I use a strange indentation ⬚ to show how the functions are related to each other and a symbol 📃/❓ to clearly distinguish their role. (Of course these are not my real function names, I just put a random letter at the end, but even without them we can clearly see the relationships.)










share|improve this question




















  • 8




    I'd say it unsafe for retrocompatible reason, if you have to use your script on old server this could not work as bash emoji support is recent. but it's probably OK on recent Linux.
    – Kiwy
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:58






  • 17




    @Ipor no, it stands for Unicode (and the “Uni” in Unicode stands for universal).
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:59






  • 5




    How "universal" do you want universal to be? Works on Cygwin, with the usual UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 problems? On modern IBM z/OS system services, which still have to deal with the EBCDIC charset? On historical Unix computers which don't use 8-bit bytes as smallest unit? The POSIX restriction is there for a reason...
    – dirkt
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:11








  • 6




    The names of functions must be made up of characters from the portable character set, according to POSIX. If "universal" means "any shell", then it would not be universal in this sense.
    – Kusalananda
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:18






  • 6




    If you find yourself asking whether it is safe to do <whatever> in a shell script, the answer is most probably no. Heck, not even doing echo $foo is safe.
    – Matteo Italia
    Nov 27 '18 at 16:49
















33












33








33


4





The simple code here is working as expected on my machine if launched with bash :



function ⏰(){
date
}



Could there be a problem for other people using this, or is it universal ?



I'm wondering because I've never seen anything like this in other source code for now.



Edit : There are unlimited possibilities, it can be used to quickly distinguish a function role with the usage of an emoji for example.



A 💣 for something that can modify or remove files, a 🔧 if it's a work in progress, 📃 for an interactive menu...



I guess we should create a standard for all of that, but it seems to be an interesting idea.

Maybe a random line of ~5 characters can help us a lot understanding what the code is doing. (Of course we need to learn how to read them.)



More edit : I'm giving it a shot. For now, if i fold all my functions in my editor (Or cat myscript.sh|grep function) they look like this. (My unicode looks much better in geany or my terminal compared to here.)



function ⬚_1(){
function ⬚⬚_2(){
function ⬚⬚⬚_📃_D(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_X(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Y(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_P(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Z(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_U(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_O(){


I use a strange indentation ⬚ to show how the functions are related to each other and a symbol 📃/❓ to clearly distinguish their role. (Of course these are not my real function names, I just put a random letter at the end, but even without them we can clearly see the relationships.)










share|improve this question















The simple code here is working as expected on my machine if launched with bash :



function ⏰(){
date
}



Could there be a problem for other people using this, or is it universal ?



I'm wondering because I've never seen anything like this in other source code for now.



Edit : There are unlimited possibilities, it can be used to quickly distinguish a function role with the usage of an emoji for example.



A 💣 for something that can modify or remove files, a 🔧 if it's a work in progress, 📃 for an interactive menu...



I guess we should create a standard for all of that, but it seems to be an interesting idea.

Maybe a random line of ~5 characters can help us a lot understanding what the code is doing. (Of course we need to learn how to read them.)



More edit : I'm giving it a shot. For now, if i fold all my functions in my editor (Or cat myscript.sh|grep function) they look like this. (My unicode looks much better in geany or my terminal compared to here.)



function ⬚_1(){
function ⬚⬚_2(){
function ⬚⬚⬚_📃_D(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_X(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Y(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_P(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚_📃_Z(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_U(){
function ⬚⬚⬚⬚⬚_❓_O(){


I use a strange indentation ⬚ to show how the functions are related to each other and a symbol 📃/❓ to clearly distinguish their role. (Of course these are not my real function names, I just put a random letter at the end, but even without them we can clearly see the relationships.)







bash shell unicode






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 28 '18 at 15:47







bob dylan

















asked Nov 27 '18 at 10:34









bob dylanbob dylan

5171615




5171615








  • 8




    I'd say it unsafe for retrocompatible reason, if you have to use your script on old server this could not work as bash emoji support is recent. but it's probably OK on recent Linux.
    – Kiwy
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:58






  • 17




    @Ipor no, it stands for Unicode (and the “Uni” in Unicode stands for universal).
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:59






  • 5




    How "universal" do you want universal to be? Works on Cygwin, with the usual UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 problems? On modern IBM z/OS system services, which still have to deal with the EBCDIC charset? On historical Unix computers which don't use 8-bit bytes as smallest unit? The POSIX restriction is there for a reason...
    – dirkt
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:11








  • 6




    The names of functions must be made up of characters from the portable character set, according to POSIX. If "universal" means "any shell", then it would not be universal in this sense.
    – Kusalananda
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:18






  • 6




    If you find yourself asking whether it is safe to do <whatever> in a shell script, the answer is most probably no. Heck, not even doing echo $foo is safe.
    – Matteo Italia
    Nov 27 '18 at 16:49
















  • 8




    I'd say it unsafe for retrocompatible reason, if you have to use your script on old server this could not work as bash emoji support is recent. but it's probably OK on recent Linux.
    – Kiwy
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:58






  • 17




    @Ipor no, it stands for Unicode (and the “Uni” in Unicode stands for universal).
    – Stephen Kitt
    Nov 27 '18 at 10:59






  • 5




    How "universal" do you want universal to be? Works on Cygwin, with the usual UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 problems? On modern IBM z/OS system services, which still have to deal with the EBCDIC charset? On historical Unix computers which don't use 8-bit bytes as smallest unit? The POSIX restriction is there for a reason...
    – dirkt
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:11








  • 6




    The names of functions must be made up of characters from the portable character set, according to POSIX. If "universal" means "any shell", then it would not be universal in this sense.
    – Kusalananda
    Nov 27 '18 at 12:18






  • 6




    If you find yourself asking whether it is safe to do <whatever> in a shell script, the answer is most probably no. Heck, not even doing echo $foo is safe.
    – Matteo Italia
    Nov 27 '18 at 16:49










8




8




I'd say it unsafe for retrocompatible reason, if you have to use your script on old server this could not work as bash emoji support is recent. but it's probably OK on recent Linux.
– Kiwy
Nov 27 '18 at 10:58




I'd say it unsafe for retrocompatible reason, if you have to use your script on old server this could not work as bash emoji support is recent. but it's probably OK on recent Linux.
– Kiwy
Nov 27 '18 at 10:58




17




17




@Ipor no, it stands for Unicode (and the “Uni” in Unicode stands for universal).
– Stephen Kitt
Nov 27 '18 at 10:59




@Ipor no, it stands for Unicode (and the “Uni” in Unicode stands for universal).
– Stephen Kitt
Nov 27 '18 at 10:59




5




5




How "universal" do you want universal to be? Works on Cygwin, with the usual UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 problems? On modern IBM z/OS system services, which still have to deal with the EBCDIC charset? On historical Unix computers which don't use 8-bit bytes as smallest unit? The POSIX restriction is there for a reason...
– dirkt
Nov 27 '18 at 12:11






How "universal" do you want universal to be? Works on Cygwin, with the usual UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 problems? On modern IBM z/OS system services, which still have to deal with the EBCDIC charset? On historical Unix computers which don't use 8-bit bytes as smallest unit? The POSIX restriction is there for a reason...
– dirkt
Nov 27 '18 at 12:11






6




6




The names of functions must be made up of characters from the portable character set, according to POSIX. If "universal" means "any shell", then it would not be universal in this sense.
– Kusalananda
Nov 27 '18 at 12:18




The names of functions must be made up of characters from the portable character set, according to POSIX. If "universal" means "any shell", then it would not be universal in this sense.
– Kusalananda
Nov 27 '18 at 12:18




6




6




If you find yourself asking whether it is safe to do <whatever> in a shell script, the answer is most probably no. Heck, not even doing echo $foo is safe.
– Matteo Italia
Nov 27 '18 at 16:49






If you find yourself asking whether it is safe to do <whatever> in a shell script, the answer is most probably no. Heck, not even doing echo $foo is safe.
– Matteo Italia
Nov 27 '18 at 16:49












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















54














A useful guideline for this is the "Portable Operating System Interface" (POSIX), a family of standards that is implemented by most Unix-like systems. It is usually a good idea to limit shell scripts to features mandated by POSIX to make sure they will be usable across different shells and platforms.



According to the POSIX specification of function definitions in the "Shell Command Language":




The function is named fname; the application shall ensure that it is a name (see the Base Definitions volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section 3.230, Name). An implementation may allow other characters in a function name as an extension.




Following the link to the definition of a "name":




In the shell command language, a word consisting solely of underscores, digits, and alphabetics from the portable character set.




That character set contains only characters between U0000 and U007E.

Therefore characters like "⏰" (U23F0) are not valid in a POSIX-compliant identifier.



Your shell might accept them, but that doesn't guarantee that others will as well.

To be able to use your script across different platforms and software versions, you should avoid using non-compliant identifiers like this.






share|improve this answer



















  • 18




    Good rule of thumb... if your standard keyboard doesn't have a key for it... don't use it.
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:44






  • 6




    @SnakeDoc youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk "standard" emoji keyboard ;)
    – Jorn
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:42






  • 9




    @Jorn Maybe I should have said "if you can't buy the keyboard from a normal retail store"... lol
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:49






  • 4




    @SnakeDoc It's a good start - but the keyboard I am typing this on has a key for £, €, and ¬ all of which are outside the portable character set. More seriously, some colleagues have keyboards with ä, ö, ü, è, é, and ß on them. They are all letters but are not good for portable function names.
    – Martin Bonner
    Nov 28 '18 at 9:27






  • 2




    POSIX-compliant but not POSIX-limited ?
    – bob dylan
    Nov 28 '18 at 11:18











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484423%2fshould-we-use-utf-8-characters-like-in-bash-shell-script%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









54














A useful guideline for this is the "Portable Operating System Interface" (POSIX), a family of standards that is implemented by most Unix-like systems. It is usually a good idea to limit shell scripts to features mandated by POSIX to make sure they will be usable across different shells and platforms.



According to the POSIX specification of function definitions in the "Shell Command Language":




The function is named fname; the application shall ensure that it is a name (see the Base Definitions volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section 3.230, Name). An implementation may allow other characters in a function name as an extension.




Following the link to the definition of a "name":




In the shell command language, a word consisting solely of underscores, digits, and alphabetics from the portable character set.




That character set contains only characters between U0000 and U007E.

Therefore characters like "⏰" (U23F0) are not valid in a POSIX-compliant identifier.



Your shell might accept them, but that doesn't guarantee that others will as well.

To be able to use your script across different platforms and software versions, you should avoid using non-compliant identifiers like this.






share|improve this answer



















  • 18




    Good rule of thumb... if your standard keyboard doesn't have a key for it... don't use it.
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:44






  • 6




    @SnakeDoc youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk "standard" emoji keyboard ;)
    – Jorn
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:42






  • 9




    @Jorn Maybe I should have said "if you can't buy the keyboard from a normal retail store"... lol
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:49






  • 4




    @SnakeDoc It's a good start - but the keyboard I am typing this on has a key for £, €, and ¬ all of which are outside the portable character set. More seriously, some colleagues have keyboards with ä, ö, ü, è, é, and ß on them. They are all letters but are not good for portable function names.
    – Martin Bonner
    Nov 28 '18 at 9:27






  • 2




    POSIX-compliant but not POSIX-limited ?
    – bob dylan
    Nov 28 '18 at 11:18
















54














A useful guideline for this is the "Portable Operating System Interface" (POSIX), a family of standards that is implemented by most Unix-like systems. It is usually a good idea to limit shell scripts to features mandated by POSIX to make sure they will be usable across different shells and platforms.



According to the POSIX specification of function definitions in the "Shell Command Language":




The function is named fname; the application shall ensure that it is a name (see the Base Definitions volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section 3.230, Name). An implementation may allow other characters in a function name as an extension.




Following the link to the definition of a "name":




In the shell command language, a word consisting solely of underscores, digits, and alphabetics from the portable character set.




That character set contains only characters between U0000 and U007E.

Therefore characters like "⏰" (U23F0) are not valid in a POSIX-compliant identifier.



Your shell might accept them, but that doesn't guarantee that others will as well.

To be able to use your script across different platforms and software versions, you should avoid using non-compliant identifiers like this.






share|improve this answer



















  • 18




    Good rule of thumb... if your standard keyboard doesn't have a key for it... don't use it.
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:44






  • 6




    @SnakeDoc youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk "standard" emoji keyboard ;)
    – Jorn
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:42






  • 9




    @Jorn Maybe I should have said "if you can't buy the keyboard from a normal retail store"... lol
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:49






  • 4




    @SnakeDoc It's a good start - but the keyboard I am typing this on has a key for £, €, and ¬ all of which are outside the portable character set. More seriously, some colleagues have keyboards with ä, ö, ü, è, é, and ß on them. They are all letters but are not good for portable function names.
    – Martin Bonner
    Nov 28 '18 at 9:27






  • 2




    POSIX-compliant but not POSIX-limited ?
    – bob dylan
    Nov 28 '18 at 11:18














54












54








54






A useful guideline for this is the "Portable Operating System Interface" (POSIX), a family of standards that is implemented by most Unix-like systems. It is usually a good idea to limit shell scripts to features mandated by POSIX to make sure they will be usable across different shells and platforms.



According to the POSIX specification of function definitions in the "Shell Command Language":




The function is named fname; the application shall ensure that it is a name (see the Base Definitions volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section 3.230, Name). An implementation may allow other characters in a function name as an extension.




Following the link to the definition of a "name":




In the shell command language, a word consisting solely of underscores, digits, and alphabetics from the portable character set.




That character set contains only characters between U0000 and U007E.

Therefore characters like "⏰" (U23F0) are not valid in a POSIX-compliant identifier.



Your shell might accept them, but that doesn't guarantee that others will as well.

To be able to use your script across different platforms and software versions, you should avoid using non-compliant identifiers like this.






share|improve this answer














A useful guideline for this is the "Portable Operating System Interface" (POSIX), a family of standards that is implemented by most Unix-like systems. It is usually a good idea to limit shell scripts to features mandated by POSIX to make sure they will be usable across different shells and platforms.



According to the POSIX specification of function definitions in the "Shell Command Language":




The function is named fname; the application shall ensure that it is a name (see the Base Definitions volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section 3.230, Name). An implementation may allow other characters in a function name as an extension.




Following the link to the definition of a "name":




In the shell command language, a word consisting solely of underscores, digits, and alphabetics from the portable character set.




That character set contains only characters between U0000 and U007E.

Therefore characters like "⏰" (U23F0) are not valid in a POSIX-compliant identifier.



Your shell might accept them, but that doesn't guarantee that others will as well.

To be able to use your script across different platforms and software versions, you should avoid using non-compliant identifiers like this.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 27 '18 at 14:35

























answered Nov 27 '18 at 14:29









n.stn.st

5,25611943




5,25611943








  • 18




    Good rule of thumb... if your standard keyboard doesn't have a key for it... don't use it.
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:44






  • 6




    @SnakeDoc youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk "standard" emoji keyboard ;)
    – Jorn
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:42






  • 9




    @Jorn Maybe I should have said "if you can't buy the keyboard from a normal retail store"... lol
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:49






  • 4




    @SnakeDoc It's a good start - but the keyboard I am typing this on has a key for £, €, and ¬ all of which are outside the portable character set. More seriously, some colleagues have keyboards with ä, ö, ü, è, é, and ß on them. They are all letters but are not good for portable function names.
    – Martin Bonner
    Nov 28 '18 at 9:27






  • 2




    POSIX-compliant but not POSIX-limited ?
    – bob dylan
    Nov 28 '18 at 11:18














  • 18




    Good rule of thumb... if your standard keyboard doesn't have a key for it... don't use it.
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 19:44






  • 6




    @SnakeDoc youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk "standard" emoji keyboard ;)
    – Jorn
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:42






  • 9




    @Jorn Maybe I should have said "if you can't buy the keyboard from a normal retail store"... lol
    – SnakeDoc
    Nov 27 '18 at 22:49






  • 4




    @SnakeDoc It's a good start - but the keyboard I am typing this on has a key for £, €, and ¬ all of which are outside the portable character set. More seriously, some colleagues have keyboards with ä, ö, ü, è, é, and ß on them. They are all letters but are not good for portable function names.
    – Martin Bonner
    Nov 28 '18 at 9:27






  • 2




    POSIX-compliant but not POSIX-limited ?
    – bob dylan
    Nov 28 '18 at 11:18








18




18




Good rule of thumb... if your standard keyboard doesn't have a key for it... don't use it.
– SnakeDoc
Nov 27 '18 at 19:44




Good rule of thumb... if your standard keyboard doesn't have a key for it... don't use it.
– SnakeDoc
Nov 27 '18 at 19:44




6




6




@SnakeDoc youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk "standard" emoji keyboard ;)
– Jorn
Nov 27 '18 at 22:42




@SnakeDoc youtube.com/watch?v=3AtBE9BOvvk "standard" emoji keyboard ;)
– Jorn
Nov 27 '18 at 22:42




9




9




@Jorn Maybe I should have said "if you can't buy the keyboard from a normal retail store"... lol
– SnakeDoc
Nov 27 '18 at 22:49




@Jorn Maybe I should have said "if you can't buy the keyboard from a normal retail store"... lol
– SnakeDoc
Nov 27 '18 at 22:49




4




4




@SnakeDoc It's a good start - but the keyboard I am typing this on has a key for £, €, and ¬ all of which are outside the portable character set. More seriously, some colleagues have keyboards with ä, ö, ü, è, é, and ß on them. They are all letters but are not good for portable function names.
– Martin Bonner
Nov 28 '18 at 9:27




@SnakeDoc It's a good start - but the keyboard I am typing this on has a key for £, €, and ¬ all of which are outside the portable character set. More seriously, some colleagues have keyboards with ä, ö, ü, è, é, and ß on them. They are all letters but are not good for portable function names.
– Martin Bonner
Nov 28 '18 at 9:27




2




2




POSIX-compliant but not POSIX-limited ?
– bob dylan
Nov 28 '18 at 11:18




POSIX-compliant but not POSIX-limited ?
– bob dylan
Nov 28 '18 at 11:18


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484423%2fshould-we-use-utf-8-characters-like-in-bash-shell-script%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa