On Tue, 7 May 2024, at 3:27 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 5/5/24 3:39 PM, Kerin Millar wrote: > >> Such is the extent to which I concur that I find even -l to be irritating. > > The option character isn't important. Is it useful to have an additional
If it were of no importance at all, once might then choose the character entirely at random. That's not usually what happens. > option to `source' that forces it to use $BASH_SOURCE_PATH, or should that > behave like other builtins ($CDPATH, $BASH_LOADABLES_PATH)? If BASH_SOURCE_PATH is to be able to take its value from the environment, it might be useful. That is, to have a means of opting in may be sensible from a backward-compatibility standpoint, whether it be in the form of an option character, a shell option or something else. Otherwise, probably not. I'm thinking of the theoretical case in which a user exports BASH_SOURCE_PATH then runs existing scripts - not necessarily of their own design - that weren't counting on this feature to ever exist. On the other hand, bash already has a cornucopia of options and I'm uncertain as to how realistic this concern is. There are various ways for the environment to influence the behaviour of a bash script as it stands. I would be interested to know what others think. -- Kerin Millar
