On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Cathey, Jim <jcat...@ciena.com> 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. > > -- Jim > > Your understanding regarding how ". filename" / "source filename" is supposed to execute commands in the file is correct, it reads and executes commands in the *current shell* as opposed to how "./filename" runs a script as an executable file by launching a *new shell*. Regarding your last statement though, just because BASH doesn't adhere to POSIX does not make it "wrong". This is particularly true when it comes to a tool intended to emulate another tool - to change from the expected behavior because it is believed to be "wrong" results in a tool which incorrectly emulates BASH. BASH does many non-POSIX compliant things. It works exactly as documented. - Paul
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
