Re: Incorrect alias expansion within command substitution

[Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 04:20 Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au> wrote:

>     Date:        Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:18:08 -0800
>     From:        L A Walsh <bash@tlinx.org>
>     Message-ID:  <61FB2D50.7010403@tlinx.org>
>
>   | My posix non-conformance issue has to do with bash not starting with
>   | aliases enabled by default in all default invocations.
>
> If you're using aliases in scripts, then just stop doing that.
>

u're tralla

There's no need for it, it just makes your script harder to
> follow.  Simply expand any aliases you"d use interactively,
> and you will no longer care about this.
>
> aliases can be uaeful interactively, so you need to type less
> (though generally functions work better and are more flexible)
> but there's no excuse for that in a script.
>
> It's just the same with variable names - interactively I use
> names like a b f ... - in a script I am much more likely to
> use much more descriptive names (most good editors have a form
> of macro expansion, where you get to just type a short word
> and the editor expands that to a longer form - use that.)
>
> Most people who use aliases in scripts are simply trying to
> show how clever they are, and like almost everyone who
> attempts that, the result is usually the exact opposite.
>
> Just don't.
>
> kre
>
>