Hello, On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Paul Otto <p...@ottoops.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Making bash "source" behavior non-standard had nothing useful in it. >> >> "source" is already non-standard and not specified in POSIX. so simply by >> using it, your script is not POSIX compliant. > > > That is why, incidentally, I wrote my proposed contribution the way I did > initially. In my view, while BASH treats "source" and "." the same, POSIX > doesn't allow for "source" so why not have "source" hold to the BASH > standard and "." hold to the POSIX standard? I definitely caved too quickly > on that point, and wound up with my contribution being swallowed up into a > patch that did the exact opposite of my intent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > This is probably due to the fact that many (for instance, I) expect . and source to behave the same way :) Having them behaving differently would somewhat violate the principle of least surprise :) BR, -- Emmanuel Deloget
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
