2024年5月15日(水) 4:51 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu>: > What do folks think about forcing an option to enable using > BASH_SOURCE_PATH? Should it be required? Is it necessary? (I personally > think it is not.) We discussed this briefly last week but without any > conclusion.
Either works for me (suppose the `source' builtin considers BASH_SOURCE_PATH even without specifying the option in non-POSIX mode). I personally think both decisions to include and not to include the suggested option are understandable. To talk about its necessity, I actually agree with the others. I don't think we need it. However, at the same time, I think the new option could be justified from the viewpoint of language design. If we have a new namespace ``BASH_SOURCE_PATH'' for the scripts to be sourced, it would be neat to have an option to specify the namespace exclusively. It is similar to `unset -v'. As far as the shell script is properly designed so that the target variable is ensured to exist, `unset var' is sufficient because the `unset' builtin first checks the variable name and falls back to the function name only when the variable doesn't exist. In this sense, `unset -v var' is not required. It's not necessary, yet I think it can be a part of a language. -- Koichi
