On 5/7/24 1:42 PM, Kerin Millar wrote:
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.
The issue is whether one is needed at all, not whether or not one character
irritates you.
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's the standard behavior, with only a few exceptions.
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.
You can export CDPATH and get the same effect with `cd', or export PATH and
modify command search order.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
