> Surely these module managers do more than simply implement an > alternate search path?
Yes. The core feature that they provide, namely module loading, should be native to bash though. Users who need just that core feature need not pull in an entire module manager just to get it. So for those users the code reduction is quite significant. > For the record I think it would be fine to introduce a new variable > BASH_SOURCE_PATH that changes the behavior of "source" in non-POSIX > mode. I don't think "source" requires a new option to use this. That's true and I think it's also a reasonable way to solve the problem. My original idea was to do exactly that. I changed course while developing it because when I thought about it I concluded it had disadvantages. The behavior of the source builtin already has several special cases. https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Bourne-Shell-Builtins.html#index-_002e Simply taking the variable into account would add to that complexity. Adding the option to source though allows simple and unambiguous behavior. I'm not at all opposed to the variable solution however. I can implement it that way if it's deemed to be the preferred way. > I didn't say or mean to imply that it was; I was just comparing it > to another suggested feature about which I have a similar opinion. > The presence or absence of patches has nothing to do with it. (By > the by, at least two implementations of XDG startup files have been > submitted in the past.) I apologize if I've given offense. I think I got a bit defensive after I read another email. > And I appreciate the effort you've put in so far. > Everyone has been seriously considering it. Thanks. Matheus
