Sounds like a useful proposal with little (no?) downsides..! Peter
On 27/02/2560 13:08, Martijn Dekker wrote: > It is not clear to me why bash has two separate namespaces for > long-named shell options, handled by two separate commands. > > It might make sense if 'set -o' is for POSIX options only and 'shopt' > for bash-specific options, but that doesn't apply. I can't figure out a > consistent basis for a distinction. This makes it a bit of a pain to > remember which option goes with which command, e.g. that 'pipefail' goes > with set, but 'lastpipe' goes with shopt. > > What was the original reason behind this? > > Since there currently are no naming conflicts between the two > namespaces, would there be any disadvantage to simply merging them and > allowing all options to be manipulated using either set or shopt? > > Thanks, > > - M. >
