Hello Bart, after my email I thought of implementing the way you suggested
and it works fine, I was reluctant to do so since I can have a variable
number of functions to trace (solved with an array and a loop) and was
confronting with the dilemma of don't wanting to clutter any "functions -T"
issued in the parent context, but that would need to be able to know if a
function has the trace activated or not, and I believe this is not
possibile, but of course I can be wrong. Also I don't really see the
practical application for this more complex behaviour so I can be happy
with what I have
thanks

Pier Paolo Grassi


Il giorno mer 13 ott 2021 alle ore 05:47 Bart Schaefer <
schaefer@brasslantern.com> ha scritto:

> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:35 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes.  Tracing of individual functions is not an option controlled by
> > setopt.
>
> Sorry, I'm being imprecise.  You can turn off the trace by using
> setopt INSIDE the traced function.  But it's not controlled by setopt
> in the CALLING function, so you can't localoptions it.
>