[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why two separate option namespaces?

From: PePa
Subject: Re: Why two separate option namespaces?
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:13:13 +0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0

Sounds like a useful proposal with little (no?) downsides..!


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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]