On Tue, 7 May 2024, at 7:14 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: > 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.
In the course of quoting me, you stated that the character isn't important then proceeded to pose an open question as to whether having an option is worthwhile, so I engaged on both counts. I don't require for anyone's agreement to think that naming matters. I don't believe that anyone that writes software genuinely believes it doesn't. I didn't say what the character ought to be. I simply didn't like the one that was presented and still don't. If you meant something to the effect of "in the case that I decide that having an option is worthwhile, the choice of character is hardly the foremost concern in all of this", then by all means. >>> 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. Yes (albeit standard behaviours). I find myself mildly inclined towards the position of not adding more options unless it is considered truly necessary. I have nothing further to add, so will take my leave of this thread. -- Kerin Millar
