On 1/26/2018 12:47 PM, Cathey, Jim wrote:
My understanding, from years past, is that "source <file>" (or ". <file>") is _exactly_ the
same as "<file>", except that it's running in _this_ shell rather than in a subshell. Thus it is able to
affect environment variables that subsequent commands can inherit, etc.
If "." is not in your PATH, and you want to source a file that's right there, you have to
". ./<file>" just as you'd expect. If that's not what bash is doing, then it's wrong.
I fought through the bash startup scripts almost 20 years ago in
college, and still have "source .bashrc" in my ~/.bash_profile that I've
been carrying from system to system ever since :-) and my PATH has
never had '.' in it. Your explanation makes perfect sense though.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
