2024年5月14日(火) 15:09 Martin D Kealey <mar...@kurahaupo.gen.nz>:
> A common pattern is to unpack a script with its associated library & config
> files into a new directory, which then leaves a problem locating the
> library files whose paths are only known relative to $0 (or
> ${BASH_SOURCE[0]}).
>
> 1. I therefore propose that where a relative path appears in
> BASH_SOURCE_PATH, it should be taken as relative to the directory
> containing $0 (after resolving symlinks), rather than relative to $PWD.After thinking about it again, I'm wondering what would be the assumed use case of proposal 1 for the relative paths in BASH_SOURCE_PATH. I think a way to simplify source "$__dir__/xxx/yyy/libzzz.bash" (where $__dir__ is resolved to be the location of the current script file) would be useful. However, I think what is generally achieved by proposal 1 would be source "$__dir__/<one of relpaths in BASH_SOURCE_PATH>/xxx/yyy/libzzz.bash" This might be useful when the middle path elements of the library location are ambiguous, yet the candidates are common with different $__dir__. However, I don't have an idea about whether this has a significant demand. What would be the use case? I naively think only `.' is normally useful for the suggested interpretation of relative paths.
